One counter point to consider: with married men making considerably more money than unmarried in the 45-54 group, even with the obvious disincentives to marry, many men will still pursue marriage the way people play the lottery. If there’s money to be had, there will be no shortage of players.

As foolish as this thinking is, it is important to remember that depending on the context this is also conventional wisdom. There are a number of factors at play here, including men’s ethic not to complain about their role as providers or even to draw attention to this role. This is a form of graciousness, not unlike a hostess responding “It’s nothing” when thanked for her hospitality. It is important to remember that there is nothing wrong with this kind of gracious mindeset, as it is what Christ taught us (see also here). That men don’t expect acknowledgment for their roles as providers, and even that they generally don’t even consider this themselves isn’t the problem. The problem is when this widespread graciousness by men is met by a culture of miserliness. Our inability to recognize the obvious fact that men take on significant responsibilities when they marry comes from this very combination of graciousness by men and miserliness by feminists.

The problem is not the person giving graciously saying “it is nothing” (and meaning it); the problem is with the recipient convincing themselves that it really is nothing. Even worse is when profound gifts are not only accepted with ingratitude, but then transformed into a debt by the receivers. This is at the core of the feminist complaint that men earn more after marriage while women earn less after marrying (H/T Sunshine Mary).

Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load. Young men are supposed to load themselves up first by being responsible for themselves and not expecting their mom to fill up their sippy cup with beer and push them in a stroller to the unemployment line. Young men who take responsibility for themselves are then ready to marry and take responsibility for the life and joy of their wife.

As I mentioned above, our problem is not that men are being gracious, but that we have institutionalized unthankfulness as our response to gracious acts by men. This is extremely corrosive to our culture, and ultimately risks creating a culture where men see marriage and fatherhood as foolhardy.

337 Responses to Winning the lottery.

we have institutionalized unthankfulness as our response to gracious acts by men.

We = women in that sentence. Women have institutionalized unthankfulness, but even worse, we have made it seem as though the gracious act of a man providing well for his family is actually a benefit for him at the expense of women! This attitude is widespread in feminist women’s writing about economics and business, but it is also noticeable in conservative women who refer to the “marriage benefit” that men receive in the form of increased earnings…which implies that men ought to thank their wives for giving them the privilege of working their @$$es off.

This is why I am always yammering on and on about the need for women to show some gratitude.

This is extremely corrosive to our culture, and ultimately risks creating a culture where men see marriage and fatherhood as foolhardy.

We’re already there, I’m just not sure what the numbers are. MGTOW as a movement, lifestyle, philosophy, is still a very small percentage of the available men. That means that men, en masse, are still willing to sign up for the current system that spits at their graciousness, and makes them indentured servants or outright slaves to women through the power of the State.

Men aren’t going to stop needing sex or wanting children any time soon. And women are never going to voluntarily give up this excellent racket that they have going, where they are afforded every privilege possible, with no responsibility whatsoever.

Who would?

The amazing thing is how silent the vast majority of men are on this, and how the Manosphere, even though now nationally recognized, is still a renegade zone.

That new commentor makes the same mistakes many people make when they look at the data: they refuse to understand incentives.

Yes married men make more money. But that is because they are married which (usually means) they are far less content making less the way they were when they were single. Married men are going to scramble MORE to make more money. They are going to send out more resumes, going to job hop a bit more (to get those $5k annual pay raises) going to give up their evenings and weekends doing other jobs for extra pin money, money they would not have bothered to seek or earn while they were single (and their fewer dollars went further.)

Men take great pride in supporting a family to the best of their ability. If they think they can make more in 40 hours, they will. They will just keep working and looking until they find a nother job that pays more and they wont stop lookign the way they would if they were single. If they can’t make more in 40 hours and they want to provide more, they will take a second job (much to the chagrin sometimes of their wives who want them home helping them!) But men quite often value themslevs in their own eyes by how muych money they bring home to the wife and children.

You can’t (as a man) “get married” with the belief that that will just mean you will be making more money. Getting married changes a mans priorities about money. (He values his money more and he values his free time he spends with his friends, less.) Subsequently, he sees his friends much less frequently making that limited time outside his family, all the more valuable to him.

Inversion of causation. I wonder why it happens in this particular case. How can one explain logically the proposition “getting married will bring men more money”? Maybe they’re confusing their wife’s earning for their own, but seeing how it is women who have the “what’s mine is mine, what yours is ours” mentality, that seems unlikely. Maybe they think that being married would get them a promotion, just because. I certainly remember someone throwing out the idea that married men as seen as more responsible, but I can say from experience that marital status is pretty much disregarded, at least in my line of work. If anything, single men as seen as unencumbered and are usually the ones who stay at the office longer.

My own explanation would be a misplaced sense of entitlement. I think a lot of people think that they will be owed money if they needed more. They don’t think about effort and responsibility, so the correct explanation becomes unconscionable. They also might look at happy and successful marriages where the man is a big earner, and believe that this is something that society will just bestowed upon them.

If men are really thinking along those lines, it may be bad news for everyone. Without any willingness to provide an effort, married men will have less money, not more. The image of people rolling in dough is already the main argument of the child-free crowd, and they absolutely right about that point, especially in the US. This may be how the bubble bursts.

I think this is the single biggest reason why I moved to Central Europe. Yes, the girls are more attractive than in the US. Yes, they are healthier. Yes, they wear heels and put themselves together better.
But I love the fact, and put a very high value, on the fact that my girlfriend values me and is extremely grateful for things I provide her. Let me be clear, I make around 50-60k a year. I do not own a car. In the states I never had a true girlfriend in the sense that I do here. Yes, I got laid in the states on occasion, but no girl was ever truly thankful if I took her out to dinner or bought her drinks that night. Western girls see it as a given that you pay for dates or drinks and requires no reciprocation on her part, and IF you say something about how you EXPECT something in return, that’s “misogynistic” or “You don’t seriously think you should get a blowjob every time you pay for my drink?”
Contrast with the Slavic girlfriend. A constant worry I’ll leave her even though she looks better than the girl of my dreams. A deep appreciation for going out to dinner even if its just a chain restaurant. Enjoyment of sex and pleasuring her man. A mother who has trained her to treat a man who has his shit together like a king. I don’t spend any more on my girlfriend here in Praha than I would in the States, probably less.
I talked to an American girl visiting here a few months ago about this as well. It was good on her part that she recognized and agreed with me that it truly is astonishing just how ungrateful and seemingly oblivious all American women are of men’s sacrifices no matter what the age and practically through every income level.
It is a very strange thing how ungrateful and spoiled American women are.

we have institutionalized unthankfulness as our response to gracious acts by men.

We = women in that sentence.

I would say that women as part of feminism have lead the way, but the larger culture has adopted this frame of mind. Men have been as eager to sow discord and resentment in other men’s homes as feminists have. Father’s day is a perfect example. The cultural reason for setting aside a day of appreciation is to ensure that the graciousness by the giver isn’t overlooked; this isn’t really for the benefit of the giver, or at least not solely for them. It is for the health of the culture. The one doing the giving/sacrificing isn’t asking for thanks, but as a society we recognize the graciousness this way. We do the same thing for veterans. But Father’s Day has been reworked by pastors for example to a day to tear men down.

…with married men making considerably more money than unmarried…men will still pursue marriage… If there’s money to be had, there will be no shortage of players.

Married men have more EXPENSES than a single man. That’s why they make more money, they work longer hours and focus on making more (ever more) money, because they have this huge financial burden called a family.

When I hear people making the above statement (and you hear something like it often from conservatives/churchians) I wonder if they understand the basics cause and effect. I wonder if their logic skills are so poor in this area, what does that say about their thinking skills in other areas (conservative politicians and pastors I’m looking at you).

I have not run the numbers, but my ballpark estimation is that if I had remained single and my income had been about half of what it was I would be in a similar financial position as I am today. Same amount of savings, same amount of debt, own (a smaller) home, own (1 instead of 2) car.

As a married man, my expenses are off the charts more than that of a single man. That’s why I make more money. I have to run faster just to stay in the same place.

MGTOW as a movement, lifestyle, philosophy, is still a very small percentage of the available men.

I’d have agreed with you before this morning, when I got an unsolicited email from someone I work with, pointing me to a post on Vox Day’s blog. This is a man who has never before expressed any red pill thought.

We both work for the superstructure, in the research and development branch. 😉

IBB That new commentor makes the same mistakes many people make when they look at the data: they refuse to understand incentives.

Yes, it is typical for newbies to make mistakes such as not understanding incentives. Many women and feminized men who are basically “purple” pill do not understand what they are incentivizing when they encourage women aged 20 to 25 not to marry, but rather to collect “experiences” specifically including the various cocks they have ridden. And ironically enough, those who cheerlead for fornication often cloak themselves in churchianity.

SSM:We = women in that sentence

Oh, no, not just women. There are plenty of men like Driscoll and Mohler in the churches who are all for Team Woman, just as there are plenty on line. Empathalogicalism ran into some just recently on another manUP website, for example. Then there are the women/feminized men who like to talk “red pill” but who retain plenty of gynocentrism – they want men to drive the car, but for those men to submit to the whims of the woman in the passenger seat, whether in the issue of ketchup on french fries, or more general directions. They want women to be in charge, but for everyone to pretend it’s the men. That way all errors can be blamed on men, and all the good things go to women.

In Lolspeak, it’s like this: “I eats cake and has it too? MOAR!”

As more and more boys are drugged into submission with psychotropics, as fewer young men bother to add skills to their skill set, as more young men decide that women are just “not worth it”, lottery winners will become fewer and fewer. Naturally this will lead to changes – initially, a doubling down on “sticks to beat men with”, of course.

Because despite the best efforts of women and manginas, men are still doing a lousy job of being the women they are supposed to be. The carrot and stick didn’t work, two sticks isn’t working.

You know, this reminds me of a hilarious customer negotiation I had once.

Talking to some women trying to start a business, they explained that they were seeking to hire my staffing firm to provide redundancy so that, in theory, I could give them a different programmer when somebody was sick, and they could then still achieve their goals.

They couldn’t see that redundancy was a benefit to them that they should pay for – they wanted the list of candidates (or, my employees), then intended to rank them by education/experience to decide what they thought the blended hourly rate was per developer. They then wanted me to itemize the invoice based on who did what work and bill accordingly, respecting caps on estimates.

They wanted an SLA that said – if one guy started a task, it would be finished, even if I had to re-staff it. I suggested that, if that task was completed, and they were originally planning to spend, say, $100/hr for 10 hours to do it, and they were asking me to guarantee it would get done, they were asking me to take a pay cut if I gave them the junior guy to finish it at $50/hr (they still wanted the 10 hours honored as a cap, you see).

When I said – you’re asking me to bear your cost – guarantee it works – and to pay for it myself with a reduced rate and the original capped hours. There was a long pause on the line, and then one of them screamed, “But you’re getting more people who can do the work, so you know it can be done, even if somebody gets sick. That’s why we’re hiring you – redundancy.”

I could not communicate with these women. They honestly thought I should see that as a value to me to pay for, and they could not see that it was just a value to them and a cost to me.

If I may go off a little.
Thank you.
Now, my opinion
SSM and Dalrock – it wasn’t ever just women devaluing men’s work, this is a persistent them in any attack on the family (even if you call ‘the family’ the bourgeoisie’). Work? Sure! ‘Work’ has value! Especially if it has some sort of modifier, like ‘social’ or ‘mind’ or activist’; ‘labor theory of value’ and all!
But specific contributions by anyone? Nope. All a great, big communal effort here. Just like Democracy!
And claiming men impart value? Well, that is a rather bourgeoisie idea, insn’t it? That existing social structure might have merit? How are we going to sweep away the old and replace it with a new, scientific future with you thinking like that? No; old norms of behavior have to be shed if the new Communist Ma…, uh, *egalitarian society* is to be made. Once you use the Marxi…, uh, *feminist* dialectic it all makes a lot more sense. Perhaps if you were to come to a Commu… uh, *feminist* consciousness raising event?
You ever see that old Star Trek episode The Doomsday Machine? Sometimes when I see current art, or listen to a feminist rant, or even some Protestant pastors I think of the Frankfurt School and am reminded of that episode – this weapon still destroying things long after its makers are dead.
At the risk of sounding like those johnny-come-lately neoreactionaries, this is all Rousseau’s fault

When I was a bachelor, making 1/5th what I do now, I used to routinely forget to cash my pay checks. I’d toss them in drawer and not remember for weeks or months to deposit them. I was literally awash in money, my needs being small. Marriage is VERY different. I make far more, and am personally much poorer. No complaints; I love my family. But financially, marriage does not make the father richer.

When i was getting married, i worked harder and longer hours for my boss to get the raise. I got the raise and maid more money.

Despite this, after years of being single and having tons of savings, all my money dried up and we were bleeding money. It was no longer ‘my money’ it was ‘our money’.

Once i became single and a bachelor, i took a job that gave me 30% less pay, 60% less stress.. and quelle suprise.. i now have tons of disposable income and tons of opportunity to enjoy it at my leisure.

++

As an aside, i can only imagine how much more productive a worker bee i would be if i ended up with a girlfriend young and had the hope of marriage and children to press me into service. I’d have worked hard to get that house and white picket fence and 2.5 kids/dog combo.

Sadly, i was overlooked for 12 years. With no incentive came no care to try and bust my ass for a dream that wouldn’t come.

By the time the opportunity arrived, i was ill prepared to take on the mantle of rich daddy provider. I was well off, but not ‘that’ well off. Sigh.. her lifestyle demanded more than i could produce.

But what i could have been if only i had been attractive enough earlier in life. If only i had understood the game. Feminism, much like the dark side of the force it seems, clouded everything.

I think that women, living so completely in a retail-store environment with an attitude where the customer is always right helps make them more susceptible to the idea that their cash and bottom line must always be protected at others’ expense.

Of course, the real business world is much closer to the opposite.

The consumer-protection paradigm in our culture has had many nasty side effects like this.

@Mark said: When I was a bachelor, making 1/5th what I do now, I used to routinely forget to cash my pay checks. I’d toss them in drawer and not remember for weeks or months to deposit them. I was literally awash in money, my needs being small. Marriage is VERY different. I make far more, and am personally much poorer. No complaints; I love my family. But financially, marriage does not make the father richer.

Wealth vs income.

Married men make more money, but married men are not financially richer–they are financially poorer.

I think Dalrock’s view of income increase post-wedding is correct. It is a cost, not a benefit.

However, it’s not entirely a cost, and it is partially a benefit. There is something to be said for the motivational power of a wife. Not in a, “Oh, I’ll motivate him alright!” sense, but just…as inspiration. It is kind of embarrassing to admit, but there were a quite a few athletic competitions in my high school years that I don’t think I could have won, but that I really wanted to impress one girl or another. No, it didn’t work out with any of those girls, but I sure am glad I did the sports I did.

The world at large, of course, vastly overblows this, Dalrock is absolutely correct. But there is something there.

I think there’s a lot of selection bias at play. If you have a desire to get married/are married, you generally will try and make more money out of need. If you don’t plan to get married, for whatever reason (like Dalrock’s missing signal), you are missing that particular incentive.

The ‘counterpoint’ Dalrock cited is another example of unicorn-logic: People with degrees earn more, let’s have everybody get a degree and then we can all earn more!

I think that women, living so completely in a retail-store environment with an attitude where the customer is always right helps make them more susceptible to the idea that their cash and bottom line must always be protected at others’ expense.

I’d be very curious to know if that women’s owned business JBP spoke of is STILL in business? I’m guessing they are not.

@Mark,
after I got engaged (again, shame on me), prior to getting married (again), I was going through my checkbook with my wife and remarked that I was writing a lot more checks than previously e.g. “nearly a dozen” the previous month. Meanwhile, she noticed that of my biweekly deposits about half were made consecutively without any activity between. Since getting married a couple dozen years ago, we (she) has managed to average over a hundred withdrawals per month.

Re: impressing the chicks. Keep in mind that in our modern keeping-up-with-the-Joneses consumer economy it is *married* men who work harder longer hours, not single men trying to pick up chicks. In a very real sense the rat-race mentality is driven strictly by hypergamy, but the effectiveness of it is predicated on her being able to leave easily. If the married man be permitted to accumulate his own wealth, then she will not want to leave and he will observe that fact, and so will many many many many other women to whom that married man starts to look better and better.

There is something to be said for the motivational power of a wife. Not in a, “Oh, I’ll motivate him alright!” sense, but just…as inspiration. It is kind of embarrassing to admit, but there were a quite a few athletic competitions in my high school years that I don’t think I could have won, but that I really wanted to impress one girl or another.

Yes, that can be true for many men. There is a flip side to this – the demotivational quality of being told “nothing you do can ever be good enough”. Not with words, necessarily, but with actions. And that’s what women who ride the carousel, typically via serial monogamy aka serial polyandry, are telling all the men around them. “Nothing you do will ever be good enough for me”. Bonus points for every nuclear rejection, by the way.

Until said women are facing the Wall, of course, and then the tune changes to “where have all the good men gone?”

Even though their older sisters, mothers, mangina fathers urged them to “experience” and “don’t settle” and put off even considering marriage until they are over 25, the young women who tread this path are still going to have to deal with the outcome, the fallout, of their choices. And sorry, Atlantic, it isn’t a national crisis no matter how many episodes of Girls you watch.

@seriouslypleasedropit says: …there were a quite a few athletic competitions in my high school years that I don’t think I could have won, but that I really wanted to impress one girl or another. No, it didn’t work out with any of those girls, but I sure am glad I did the sports I did.

I once worked with a guy that told me he quit the high school band and joined the football team, because a friend told him he’d an easier time getting girls as a jock. He enjoyed the band; football not as much. Twenty years later, he still regretted the decision.

Both the blue-pill world and red-pill Gamers have one thing in common: they encourage men to act like trained seals performing tricks to impress women.

It is very rare (very rare indeed) that a man meet (at any point in his single life) any woman who is interested in being his wife where she DIDN’T look at him as anything more than a f-cking ATM. Assume she was working when she met him and she intends to continue working outside the home after they are married.

To her, his paycheck:
* pays the mortgage
* pays both the car payments
* pays for his gasoline
* pays for the household food
* pays the car insurance
* pays her students loan(s)
* pays his student loan(s) if any
* pays the cable/direcTV
* pays for the cellular bills
* pays for the tuition for her (or their) kids in school
* pays for the house repairs
* pays for the car repairs
* pays for the landscaping
* pays for the housecleaners
* pays for the heating bill
* pays for the electricity
* pays for the home owners insurance
* pays for the real estate taxes
* pays for his life insurance (she wont have a policy because…. she’ll never die and even if she does, she doesn’t care what happens afterwards)

To her, per paycheck:
* pays for her clothes
* pays for her lunches out (no $3 pizza, $17 Japanese)
* pays for her make-up
* pays for her feminine hygene products
* pays for her magazines
* pays for her Sirus radio
* pays for her Kindle and book purchases
* pays for her mani-pedi
* pays for her health club membership
* pays for her massage envy
* pays for her physical trainer
* pays for her tanning
* pays for her cats and vet bills
* pays for the detailing of her car at lunch time
* pays for her drinks out on the weekend with her married girl buds

There is something to be said for the motivational power of a wife. Not in a, “Oh, I’ll motivate him alright!” sense, but just…as inspiration. It is kind of embarrassing to admit, but there were a quite a few athletic competitions in my high school years that I don’t think I could have won, but that I really wanted to impress one girl or another.

The demotivational wife, who has lost attraction for her husband, is another case of “nothing you do is ever good enough”. I’ve written several places now about the very real, physical as well as psychological, effects on a man when his woman yells at him. Suffice to say that it spikes a man’s stress level up, maybe very far up. Do that often enough and real physical harm results, often to the circulatory system. Self medication with alcohol is one “solution” men may resort to. There are others.

The demotivational wife doesn’t have to yell to have an effect. Unending grumbling, perpetual “headaches” at bedtime, constant criticism along the lines of “why did you do this that way, why didn’t you do it the other way” (“Driving Miss Daisy” mode) all can play a role in making inspiration into something more like depression.

That’s enough of that for now. SSM and Elspeth have much more to say on the topic IMO and some women may be more inclined to heed them.

I think Dalrock’s view of income increase post-wedding is correct. It is a cost, not a benefit.

However, it’s not entirely a cost, and it is partially a benefit. There is something to be said for the motivational power of a wife. Not in a, “Oh, I’ll motivate him alright!” sense, but just…as inspiration. It is kind of embarrassing to admit, but there were a quite a few athletic competitions in my high school years that I don’t think I could have won, but that I really wanted to impress one girl or another. No, it didn’t work out with any of those girls, but I sure am glad I did the sports I did.

I don’t disagree on the incentive part. But even here, this is an incentive to work harder, to make sacrifices. This isn’t a magical benefit men get where they work just as hard and everything falls into their laps (winning the lottery). Feminists are not jealous that men are motivated by marriage, they are jealous of what they perceive as a free lunch for men.

@Paul

I think there’s a lot of selection bias at play. If you have a desire to get married/are married, you generally will try and make more money out of need. If you don’t plan to get married, for whatever reason (like Dalrock’s missing signal), you are missing that particular incentive.

The selection bias and the incentive to work harder are two sides of the same coin. Men who want to marry have an incentive to work harder because this is how you win a wife (and how you win a better one). After marriage the incentive morphs from finding a wife to honoring the responsibility of husband/father, but even here the connection is clear. Being a breadwinner is very much part of the role of husband/father.

The ‘counterpoint’ Dalrock cited is another example of unicorn-logic: People with degrees earn more, let’s have everybody get a degree and then we can all earn more!

Given the way most men think, I do believe that all men getting (and staying) married would cause an increased sense of responsibility. Not all men will respond to the same degree, and there is the selection bias you mentioned above, but the vast majority of men take this kind of responsibility seriously. Related to blue collar vs white collar men, one paper I’ve seen found that blue collar men increased their earnings more after marrying than white collar men, with the assumption being that white collar men were already fully motivated.

Re: the ‘married men earn more but have less disposable income’.
Well, *maybe*. My father had a cartoon on his wall of ‘the 70 year old bachelor’. It showed an old man at a bar with the caption ‘I spent most of my money on beer and loose women. The rest I just wasted.’
Old joke? Sure.
But there is a ring of truth to it.
When I was a sergeant in the army there was a truism that you could tell if a soldier married a good woman by looking at him 3 months later. If he was still broke, still had wrinkles in his uniform on Friday, and was still bumming smokes she’s no damn good. If he always has smokes, his uniform was well-pressed all week, and he always had $5 on him, you can stop worrying about it.
The question isn’t ‘how much disposable income do you have?’ it is ‘are you building wealth and security – *and a family*?’
If the Wife and I had stopped with one kid would we have more disposable income each month? Maybe.
We have five kids. I wouldn’t trade any one of them for ‘disposable income’.
Plus, it isn’t like I’m suffering! I come to a house full of people who love me, a home-cooked meal, a cigar with whiskey, and a hot wife who has had 20+ years of practice in knowing what I like and want. We travel, take vacations, buy gifts, entertain friends and neighbors, etc. OK, I have to plan ahead to buy new gold clubs – and? It doesn’t make me poor!
.
More on topic.
*Why* do married men make more money? Here’s a hint – men with SAHW’s make *even more* money than men with wives who work outside the home.
Division of labor = reduced opportunity costs + many hands make for light work. My wife is a SAHW who home schools. I can focus on my career and not worry about shopping, dentist appointments, remembering the boss’ birthday, etc. I can do *my* job. Likewise she can focus on getting the biggest bang for the buck, stretching every nickle, and raising/educating the children. She can so *her* job.

Got it. So they have no one collecting a paycheck, they don’t have an office, and they are not doing anything, but one of the ladies might be answering the phone from her house or something incase somone who sees their website or their yellow page ad wants to give them money. Yes, that sounds like a woman’s owned business.

IBB.
“It is very rare (very rare indeed) that a man meet (at any point in his single life) any woman who is interested in being his wife where she DIDN’T look at him as anything more than a f-cking ATM. Assume she was working when she met him and she intends to continue working outside the home after they are married.”

Yes that is consistent with my experience and observation.

My attempt at a clever turn or phrase also has an important underlying implication. Simply no man has a valid claim of need against any women’s actual ability.

Unfortunately, society has been working to undermine the patriarchal marriage model for 20 years. Few young men today have any hope of finding a woman that is interested in establishing that type of marriage, much less of actually establishing a patriarchal marriage. Holding up your marriage (which I congratulate you on) as a model any man marrying in current societal conditions could achieve is unrealistic.

I agree with you that a patriarchal marriage model has great benefits for men, unfortunately patriarchal marriage is all but dead.

My attempt at a clever turn or phrase also has an important underlying implication. Simply no man has a valid claim of need against any women’s actual ability.

No, he doesn’t. And women understand that.

Over the last 25 years, the most successful women I’ve met and worked with in the business world, the hardest working that truly produced as much as their male counterparts, they weren’t married. And with good reason (to them.) They already had all their resources for themselves. Why the f-ck would they ever want to get married and share when they don’t have to? They would never meet a man that could love that could produce even as much as they do, so marriage offers too much risk for them.

Its kind of expalins why so many female medical doctors are either single or married to another medical doctor. For a woman, if you can’t marry up, don’t marry at all!

IBB.
“It is very rare (very rare indeed) that a man meet (at any point in his single life) any woman who is interested in being his wife where she DIDN’T look at him as anything more than a f-cking ATM.”

I guess I struck the jackpot. I met my wife in college. We were both older “non-traditional” students. She was a foreign student from the Philippines and I had just gotten out of the military after 7 years. To say that money was tight would be an understatement. When I took her on our first real date, she said something that very few American women have ever said, “You’re spending too much money on me.” I was floored.

She’d grown up poor in the Philippines, much of the time under the Marcos dictatorship. There wasn’t much in the way of social services over there. If you were poor in the PI, you worked, you stole or you starved. Her parents both worked but money was very tight. She knows how to manage money and is very frugal.

We’ve been married for 30 years now. We started out with almost nothing. When we went to INS to get her “green” card (which isn’t green), we had to sign paperwork stating that if we had to go on welfare for any reason, she would be deported. I guess those rules have changed. She dropped out of college to work while I finished my degree. After going back into the military as an officer, I worked to send her to nursing school. We both worked hard and saved our money as best we could. This took on new importance after I was RIFed in the 1992 drawdown. I had to start over at age 35. Once again, she worked while I went back to school to get some new skills. After that, I got a new job and we started all over building our resources for the future. We have a 7 figure net worth now and that’s because we did it together. She had to retire two years ago for health reasons but we get by just fine on my income and our investments. I look forward to retiring myself in 4-10 years.

I thank goodness I didn’t marry any of the American women that I dated before meeting my wife. I’m certain my life wouldn’t have been nearly the same.

I distinctly recall the day I went with my wife to watch the first ultrasound of our baby.
I went to work (swing shift), and about 2 hours into the shift, I was thinking about the images while in the middle of a task. I just couldn’t get my mind around the moving image that THAT WAS MY SON IN THERE, and that in a few months I would be the sole breadwinner for the entire family.

And I felt something at a very basic, hormonal level wash over me, head to toe. My mental focus, in that very hour, increased significantly, and I became much more focused and serious about every aspect of my job and career from that point forward. In eight years since, my salary has tripled as my mental state went from someone who was good at my job to someone who was good AND focused.

“the most successful women I’ve met and worked with in the business world, the hardest working that truly produced as much as their male counterparts, they weren’t married. And with good reason (to them.) They already had all their resources for themselves. Why the f-ck would they ever want to get married and share when they don’t have to?”

Thus the current state of affairs. Women are now reduced to being good for only one thing, unless you’re a gay man. Women, collectively, in the current culture have nothing unique to offer men but the pleasurable use of their bodies. But despite that a man is still expected to fulfill all previous social responsibilities without complaint, and to be grateful for his burden.

Single men need less money than single women. They generally have a higher tolerance for crime, and shall we say imperfect apartments, they spend less on clothing and beauty, and they don’t feel a need to “treat” themselves or take “me” days when they don’t really have the money to spend on that sort of thing. Lastly, up until Obamacare, men paid less for healthcare and health insurance.

What else would you expect from the church?
Funny how you don’t hear the lectures to the princesses. I have known a number of women being coddled well up to 40 years old. And some church dick is going to talk about sippy cups of beer and mommy driving us to unemployment line? Considering “pastor” isn’t even a real job and churchie joes like this contribute nothing to society but have the tithe bowl out just makes the whole thing sardonic.
Someone should tell pastor Judas that a load makes a truck less stable, negatively affects braking and messes up fuel efficiency. He has contempt for women too, as he sees them as dead weight.

I should have used a word other than “good,” perhaps “useful”, or “suitable” would have been better choices.

However, I take some issue referring to men’s productivity. Those top 2-4% are not working in isolation. They are leading teams that perform the bulk of the labor. Without underlings those top men produce much less.

Market valuations of any particular job only tell us the price value of the job but say nothing about the quality of labor performed other than that worker met the expected benchmark. That applies to all vocations, and all incomes.

Someone should tell pastor Judas that a load makes a truck less stable, negatively affects braking and messes up fuel efficiency.

If he had the mental capacity to grasp either the laws of physics or how heavy machinery operates, he would have a real job like the men he constantly denigrates. “Pastor” Judas (or should that be Judy?) clearly suffers from penis envy.

This is extremely corrosive to our culture, and ultimately risks creating a culture where men see marriage and fatherhood as foolhardy.

From a purely selfish standpoint it is foolhardy to get married. The only reason you would want to get married is to make sure your children have the right sort of environment in which to grow up. Even then, if you get divorced (meaning, most likely, she divorces you) your kids will be no better off than they would have been if you’d had them outside of wedlock.

From a purely selfish standpoint it is foolhardy to get married. The only reason you would want to get married is to make sure your children have the right sort of environment in which to grow up.

Unfortunately, the way man’s laws are written now and who they financially empower (and why) you are correct. From a selfish standpoint, yes. If you feel no Christian need to reproduce, go the full MGTOW and become a Bill Maher.

“From a purely selfish standpoint it is foolhardy to get married. The only reason you would want to get married is to make sure your children have the right sort of environment in which to grow up. Even then, if you get divorced (meaning, most likely, she divorces you) your kids will be no better off than they would have been if you’d had them outside of wedlock.”

The last is not exactly true, actually. The kids in maternal custody post-frivorce are at heightened risk of both physical abuse (mostly by Mom) or sexual abuse (mostly by members of the boyfriend bedroom parade), but if they dodge those bullets, their life malfunction rate is in between the never- and always-married rates.

Finally he says something I agree with.
Rollo’s latest effort, “Possession,” was a steaming pile in my opinion,and I will tell you why.

Women have the same persistence of vision as infants do,you can be King Alpha Master at home,but when she is out of your sight on the GNO,you don’t exist at all,in her thoughts.
Ties right in with the ‘ungrateful’ meme put forth here.

So what have you done for me……In the last 30 seconds you’ve been in my sight?

“The last is not exactly true, actually. The kids in maternal custody post-frivorce are at heightened risk of both physical abuse (mostly by Mom) or sexual abuse (mostly by members of the boyfriend bedroom parade), but if they dodge those bullets, their life malfunction rate is in between the never- and always-married rates.”

This is kind of like saying, except for the soldiers gunned down on Omaha beach, the impact on the soldeirs were somewhere between peace time and the rest of the war for the soldiers. As long as we’re cherry picking here since cohabitating is closer to bibilical marriage than the sham that legal marriage is, I would guess that the outcome for children in cohabitating couples that stay together is as good or better than the always marrieds.

I don’t know if getting married is the real motivator. In my husband’s case, he really kicked it in gear when I was pregnant with our first child. Before that, I worked full-time and put him through college while he mostly worked part-time. He restructured his schooling in order to become the breadwinner of the family during my first pregnancy.

Maybe the difference isn’t so noticeable in most cases since most couples don’t wait as long as we did to have kids. Many couples can’t wait long. Often the woman is already old enough at marriage that her fertility is starting to decline.

@orion2Artemis… pool
When not flat on my back from someone crashing into my car, I swim in a long pool.
Phallic symbols exist at/as ancient religious, government structures
Solomon’s Temple. Cathedrals. Southern U S has steeples.
The new cathedral is, for example, is content programmed into the long screen, with rounded edges, you hold in your hand. It is powerful, and it gets most people’s attention, much like the grand structures built long ago.his modus operandi? When George Clooney plays a role, what is his modus operandi?
Pastor Mark is famous. A lot of famous people are actors aren’t reading the script, they become the message. The message,inevitably changes with each new meme (me-me), script or narrative.
Is he famous because he’s more handsome than Chris Hemsworth?
Is he famous because his role is to change the course of human events?
This video will disappear in 24 hours:http://wp.me/P3P5mL-eh

The US is a country full of entitlement princesses. as far as this post, Dalrock hit the nail on the head. I’ve heard the old, married men make more money line from women. The truth of the matter is that married men have to make as much money as possible. If they dont then their wife will throw out the threatpoint and broke guys do even worse in a divorce. Divorce in america was historically for the rich. We have 6 million dollars, ok u get 3 million and I get 3 million. Both parties arent going to starve. The man gets to stay a playboy and get a much younger woman (20 years younger) and the woman gets a boat load of money and sets up an even bigger sucker. All the kids expenses are paid for, and its just one big happy split up. The children being raised have business minds and recognise that the marriage was a business. Upper middle class, and high class people realize that marriage is vehicle to consolodate wealth that will be passed on to their heirs. One spouse is a big earner and the other knows how to invest. there are many variations of that last sentence. the point of this is that to the rich a divorce isnt the end of the world. When regular average joe gets a divorce, it can devistate a family for 3 generations. this is due to the napalm of the process.

@Marcus
Well I’ll be .. Subjectverb lays it down there. And she’s a wife an’ all!” Love does not give ultimatums. “

The kid is micturating into the breeze, by my reading. Chronic oneitis. In my experience, once girls get antsy like that they already have a relational DZ all set up, and are just looking to make the jump as effortless and comfortable as they can.
Move on, son, and it’ll all soon be out of sight and smell, behind the cart.

“…since cohabitating is closer to bibilical marriage than the sham that legal marriage is, I would guess that the outcome for children in cohabitating couples that stay together is as good or better than the always marrieds.”
1) “…since cohabitating is closer to bibilical marriage than the sham that legal marriage is…”? What are you smoking? No, as a theologian I must ask where does this come from?
2) No, even if you ignore the 30 years of studies that show that cohabitating couples that have kids are about twice as likely to break up as married couples (think about that) the children of cohabitating parents face much higher rates of stress, depression, violence, abuse, crime, etc. compared to the children of always married. Heck, children of cohabitating parents are more likely to live in poverty than the children of single mothers, at least in the US.

@innocentbystanderboston says: If you feel no Christian need to reproduce, go the full MGTOW and become a Bill Maher.

There is no biblical requirement of Christians to either marry or reproduce. In fact, the Bible says exactly the opposite: the preferred state of Christians is unmarried (and by extension childless, since the Bible only approves of sex within marriage).

The “Christian duty to marry and have children” was made up by churchians like Mohler as a tool to influence young men into living their lives according to Mohler’s vision. It’s quite effective on men who don’t read their Bible, but it has no basis in scripture whatsoever.

@Aquinas Dad says: Don’t count out patriarchy yet – more than half of female college freshmen report that they want to one day be stay at home mothers. The impetus is still there.

There’s a big difference between wanting to be a SAHM (and spend time with her baby) and wanting to be a wife in a patriarchal marriage.

I read an article yesterday that discussed a survey showing that after, after having their first child, 72% of married women desired to be stay at home moms. I can relate to that, because that was exactly my wife’s reaction.

A quarter century ago, I married a career woman. I wanted a modern career woman and I was happy with the arrangement (this was before I was saved–I couldn’t even spell Jesus at the time–and I was soaked in the modernist blue-pill thinking). We based our plans (including our financial plans) on her being a working mom. Then came our first child, and all heck broke lose as her SAHM instinct kicked in.

But, did her becoming a SAHM erase all the other feminist caca she had been immersed in? Oh hell no. She still believe we should have an equal marriage (meaning we both made the big decisions, but she had the ultimate veto power); we should still share chores (meaning we should split the traditional female chores like cooking and laundry, but I should still do ALL the traditional males chores like yard work and home repairs). The idea that I should become the leader of the family and she should defer to my leadership never came up.

Being a SAHM and being a modern feminist are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I’d argue that most SAHM’s are feminist at their core in the same way that most modern church’s are feminist at their core.

Being a SAHM and being a modern feminist are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I’d argue that most SAHM’s are feminist at their core in the same way that most modern church’s are feminist at their core

Yup.

Really the only way a man can “safely” enforce the Patriarchy with a woman is to (sadly) just live with her and not marry her (this way she can’t run to the state to make herself “whole” at your expense.) She lives in his house and he makes all the rules or she has to move out. And if you really want to make this work, make sure your parents own the house (not you) and they write up an agreement that means at anytime, they can boot you (and her) out of th ehouse for any reason for your own protection. So if she goes full ferral-BPD and calls the cops on you for some bs domestic violence that didn’t exist, the cops have the authority to boot you out of the house (for a moment) until such time as you call your folks then the police have to boot her out of the house (and you can return.) Basically, don’t sign anything where the contact is between you, her, and the state. Because the state will only enforce the part that benefits her.

I’m in my mid 40’s and you might think that with a good 6 figure income, I’d be a good example to follow. Probably if I hadn’t married, I’d have slacked off, taken time off, maybe gone into taking intermittent contracting gigs broken up by extended vacations, so I’d likely be making less money because I hadn’t been climbing the career ladder. The problem is that a (non-working) wife and kids are an expensive proposition, all the mouths to feed, a much larger residence, kids activities, and then saving for college. You don’t have kids for the money.

Acquinas Dadmore than half of female college freshmen report that they want to one day be stay at home mothers

1. Source for this, please.
2. Women say all sorts of things. Their actions sometimes agree with their words…
3. “One day”, means what? Does it mean “Before I graduate from college”? Does it mean “within two years of my graduation”? Does it mean “after I spend the next 5 to 7 years riding the cock carousel”? Or does it mean “When I get close to The Wall after having spent my most fertile years getting banged by men I met in bars”?

Read the fine print in statements like these, and compare them to actions, that’s my suggestion.

“The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years.”

The interesting point of the NYT article is that the better college a woman attended the more likely she was to be a stay at home mom. So, a female Harvard grad was more likely to end up being a SAHM than a female Penn. St. grad.

earl says: “So, a female Harvard grad was more likely to end up being a SAHM than a female Penn. St. grad.” “With so much more debt to offer.”

The explanation is that a female grad of Harvard is more likely to marry a man who went to an elite college like Harvard (a man who makes lots of money), so she has the option–from a financial standpoint–of becoming a SAHM and letting her high earner husband support her.

About 50% of mothers are SAHM’s, but as you can see from the Pew survey 77% would prefer to be SAHM’s. That extra 27% represents working moms who would prefer to be SAHM’s, but can’t due to financial reasons–primarily, because their husbands don’t make enough money to enable them to stay home. Do you think those moms love their husbands or resent them for not making enough money?

So, a female Harvard grad was more likely to end up being a SAHM than a female Penn. St. grad.

Of course.

All other things being equal, the female Harvard grad is marrying a male Harvard grad while the female Penn State grad marries a male Penn State grad. All other things being equal with their husbands, the male Harvard grad will make more money than the male Penn State grad. So (assuming that the debt between the two females is equal) the Harvard grads can afford it easier on one income.

About 50% of mothers are SAHM’s, but as you can see from the Pew survey 77% would prefer to be SAHM’s. That extra 27% represents working moms who would prefer to be SAHM’s, but can’t due to financial reasons–primarily, because their husbands don’t make enough money to enable them to stay home. Do you think those moms love their husbands or resent them for not making enough money?

Knowing women as well as I think I do, the answer to that question depends mostly on whether or not the wife had a long history of work outside the home prior to being married. It also depends upon how they were raised (and what their priorities are.)

@Anonymous Reader says: “New York Tiimes: Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood … I see, so the set of all women in college is the same as a subset of women in college. “Some” and “all” mean the exact same thing. Is that what you meant to say?”

Apparently you failed to actually read the linked articles, because that’s they only way your “some and all” response makes sense–if you based it only on the article title.

“The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years.”

“…the Pew Research Center recently found that if offered the choice, only 23 percent of married mothers would choose to work full-time outside of the home. ”

What part of the above two quotes from the linked articles isn’t clear? And if you’d take the time to do a simple google search on the subject (instead of expecting others to do your research for you) you would find that those two articles are far from unique. There are a number of studies showing the exact same result.

@Anonymous Reader says:8to12…There is no biblical requirement of Christians to either marry or reproduce. …Your status as Bible scholar is zero, given your enthusiasm for women fornicating all they want until the age of 25, and your stubborn refusal to admit error on that issue.”

I have never advocated fornication. I have always said that the only biblically approved outlet for sex was within marriage.

I also linked an essay on exactly why I don’t believe there is a duty for Christians to marry, which you apparently didn’t read either.

And then there is this gem:
“We have to teach our boys the rules of equality and respect, so that as they grow up, gender equality becomes a natural way of life. And we have to teach our girls that they can reach as high as humanly possible.”

Boys – you have to learn equality and respect.
Girls – you have to learn that you can reach as high as humanly possible.

8to12@Anonymous Reader says:8to12…There is no biblical requirement of Christians to either marry or reproduce. …Your status as Bible scholar is zero, given your enthusiasm for women fornicating all they want until the age of 25, and your stubborn refusal to admit error on that issue.”

This quote is not accurate. Do not edit my comments in order to have a straw man to bash. There is a word for that, and if you do this again, I shall use that word when referring to you in the future.

8to12I have never advocated fornication. I have always said that the only biblically approved outlet for sex was within marriage.

Try reading more carefully. You wrote something, IBB responded to you, I clearly and obviously responded to IBB, who is on record approving of women aged 20 – 25 avoiding marriage in favor of “experience”, specifically including sexual intercourse with men outside of marriage.

8to12I also linked an essay on exactly why I don’t believe there is a duty for Christians to marry, which you apparently didn’t read either.

I did not bother to read it for two reasons: first, I agree with your proposition, and second it is irrelevant to the points I am attempting to make in this thread. I choose what I do and do not read, and people who attempt to decide what I should read are often disappointed.

8to12, I read the article. Do you understand that Yale, Harvard and other Ivy schools do not constitute the sum total of all institutions of higher learning in the US, or not?

Here’s an excerpt from the article in question. Please pay attention to the words in boldWhile the changing attitudes are difficult to quantify, the shift emerges repeatedly in interviews with Ivy League students, including 138 freshman and senior females at Yale who replied to e-mail questions sent to members of two residential colleges over the last school year.

Do you understand where they obtained their sample set? From a small subset of the set of all colleges. Are you assuming that college women at Yale are just like college women at the University of Idaho or Arkansas State in their aspirations, plans, etc.? If so, please lay out the reasoning you used. Suppose I do an income survey of the northermost counties of Virginia, and limit my study to lawyers, doctors, and other professionals. Suppose then I generalize the conclusions to all of Virginia, or all of the Southeast. Would that be in any way credible, to assume that Beltway lawyers are typical of the wage earners of the Commonwealth? Or would it be a subsample of a subsample that cannot be generalized without some mighty strong evidence?

IBBThere is a lot that is written on this blog that Anonymous Reader simply chooses NOT to read.

And there are things that I do read, and I do not forget, like your enthusiasm for young women to ride the cock carousel for a few years before bothering to consider marriage. Why is it so important to you that women have the option of promiscuity, I wonder?

8to12, perhaps you are confused by the comments from women at universities outside of the Ivy League and somehow conflated those comments with the survey taken at Yale and some other Ivies. You should understand that comments are anecdotes, rather than data. I have not bothered to track down the study referenced because it is not anonymous. We can tell it was not anonymous because the questions were asked of students via email. It is self-reported and thus pretty much garbage.

Finally, as I pointed out to Acquinas Dad, women say all sorts of things, and sometimes their actions actually match their words. The age of first marriage is right on this site, in an article from late last year, if you choose to go look. It is an aggregate, unlike the study you are citing.

Women are marrying later and later. So their actions are different from their words.

You can pay attention to women’s words if you like, I will watch what they do.

IBB wrote this:That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29. The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)

This “having fun” is nothing less than riding the cock carousel, engaging in promiscuity (yes, serial “monogamy” is promiscuity) and IBB states it “does not bother me in the least”. Given what we know about the probability of divorce increasing with each different sexual partner a woman has before marriage, IBB is clearly in favor of divorce.

The words of IBB are clear. Pretending they weren’t written has failed. Trying to pretend they said something other than the plain language has failed. There is one way out: for IBB to admit that this position taken is wrong, it is bad and that it is prohibited by plain language in the Bible (of course, IBB is free to simply stop quoting the Bible, that’s ok with me). Admit error, correct the error, move on. That’s how men roll, IBB.

Yet you can’t seem to do it. For some reason, it is important to you that women have the option of being as promiscuous as they want while they are at the peak of their SMV. Why is that?

I was just introduced to your blog by a coworker. I so wished i saw this 3 or 5 years ago.
I would of became a MGTOW, however i find myself as a beta earner. My new wife is a
Filipino. After taking half a red pill 15 years ago i knew a US girl had nothing to offer as a wife,
Except more pain and the great loss of MY income. Therefor I sought out an asian. Your post
” Child support and the threat point.” I read many who also had asian wives, this has given me
Some hope after taking all of the red pill. Lol.
I had a question; not knowing were to post it.
After reading so much about how MGTOW, or just living with her has become a growing trend, I
Wonder how many half reds are taking the same path as i did ?
The past 5 years traveling to the Philippines i see so many US men looking for a “real wife”.
How fast is this asian wife shopping growing ? Just last week i saw a new upcoming TV series advertised about the horrors of ” 90 day wives “. Is this a new attack against men looking for a way out from under the US feminist trap?

“Boys – you have to learn equality and respect.
Girls – you have to learn that you can reach as high as humanly possible.”

Translation:
Boys: You should submit to every girls’ whim. You should never compete with a girl for admission to a school or for a job because she wants it and deserves to have it. You have responsibilities but no authority, obligations but no expectations. Your life sucks but women have had it bad for a long time and it’s now your turn to pay for sins committed before you were born.

Girls: You can be anything you want regardless of whether some boy happens to be more qualified. If you want it, you deserve it. You have rights but are not accountable for your actions when you choose poorly (probably because of a boy). You go, Grrrl!

Deserve is one of the worst words in the English language. You deserve what you earn.

Girls – you have to learn that you can reach as high as humanly possible.

“Beware, girls! Those evil, rapey, patriarchal men and their captive, brainwashed, anti-feminist women will try to convince you that the phrase ‘humanly possible’ means different things for men and women because men and women are not the same. Do not listen to them! FOR GODDESS’S SAKE, DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM!”

The words of IBB are clear. Pretending they weren’t written has failed. Trying to pretend they said something other than the plain language has failed. There is one way out: for IBB to admit that this position taken is wrong, it is bad and that it is prohibited by plain language in the Bible (of course, IBB is free to simply stop quoting the Bible, that’s ok with me). Admit error, correct the error, move on. That’s how men roll, IBB.

My words were clear. Crystal. She’s having fun riding the cock carrosel. She is. To her, that’s fun. Maybe her N is 100 or 10 or maybe just 1. But the N is not 0. She doesn’t give a damn what is written in the Bible. I do care. She doesn’t. She is going to do whatever she wants to do. Your frustration with me about this does no good. I am not encouraging women to do anything. I am only acknowledging what they are already doing.

Reasons why they are busting their cherries outside of marriage are Legion. Pick and choose any or all or none of the following.

#1) They aren’t getting ANY marrital offers.
#2) Their hormones are in hypermode (and God Almighty gave us hormones.)
#3) They want to try on different guys to see which one is the best lover? (maybe)
#4) They are on the pill and they figure its not a date if they are not laid? (maybe)
#5) Their girlfriends (who aren’t virgin) are putting them up to it. (Yes.)
#6) They get drunkat college and can’t help themselves? (maybe?)
#7) They went on their first paid vacation and wanted to bang an Islander for the “memory?” (maybe)

Any reasons AR. They are not Biblical. I am not disputing you on that. But they are still going to do it. From a personal experience, one of the women from my past bragged to me that she waited until she was 18 and went to Israel because she wanted to lose her virginity to an Israeli solider. That is exactly what she did. That was her dream. She didn’t even know what he name was and she didn’t care, she just wanted to fulfill her twisted dream. Whats done is done. And I would never have recommended that she do that.

This is it for you and me. This is the last time I will discuss this AR. If you mention this one more time that I am encouraging girls to ride the cock carrosel, something I never did, I’ll never acknowledge you again and you would be yelling at no one. You will be shunned.

The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)

IBB, all you have to do is explain this comment. The first sentence seems to flow into the second. You need to clarify, because as of right now it looks like you’re saying “The fact that she is having fun (sleeping around) during the ages of 20 to 25 doesn’t bother me in the least.” That’s what your two sentences above seem to indicate. If you could clarify yourself on this issue, I’m sure Anonymous Reader will drop it (though he/she will probably continue to think you’re a woman–for what it’s worth, I do think you’re a dude).

Marissa
You are most likely right in your assessment. The thing is as a father we all know what is right until it is our little pumpkin and now we want what is best. Little pumpkin is a good girl so what ever she wants to do is good and holding out until your ready is always “good.” In the mean time date and get to know people so you won’t be naive. Living together is ok to avoid getting a divorce and maintaining your independence so you won’t be vulnerable to being abused etc. Stupid shit good people advise and do to ensure a smoothly paved path to hell. The last thing any father would do is publicly acknowledge he advised his daughters to be sluts although with the noblest and loving intentions.

@IBB, if you really meant what you’re saying in this thread, then there’s no way you would have written the previous words in such a way as to allow us to construe the conflict we’re seeing here. Instead, you’re doubling down on your previous words. Nice turn of phrase, that…

It’s very simple: to say what you’re saying today, but not taking back what you said previously, this is the conflict the rest of us see. Perhaps you can’t take them back because that would be to go against your daughter who you may have encouraged down that path in the first place…

You need to clarify, because as of right now it looks like you’re saying “The fact that she is having fun (sleeping around) during the ages of 20 to 25 doesn’t bother me in the least.” That’s what your two sentences above seem to indicate.

Sure. With you I will clarify. I said…

That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29. The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)

…that her not marrying between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. It doesn’t. It doesn’t bother me because she’s not getting any offers. I did not say that “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.) didn’t bother me in the least.

Am I in no man’s land? I’m a single, never married man in my early 40’s. I’ve dated quite a bit but seemed to have discovered my own red pill (low potency) decades ago simply as a result of witnessing the carnage of divorce in the lives of men, everywhere. However, in spite of my ‘failure’ to marry where my apparent only inspiration for life would have been found I did not experienced the compulsory ‘failure to launch’.
At the risk of sounding boastful (absolutely not my intention) I’ve been in a financial position since my thirties in which I could retire if I chose and fully expect to retire in just a few more years. Raised in poverty, by parents now married over 50 years, my inspiration to earn and thrive as a small business entrepreneur was the plain obvious one, to earn wealth to provide for *me* a comfortable life. In fact, a big part of my inspiration to stay single has been to avoid having my life and wealth pirated by an impulsive shrew who has been given the legal power to make decisions, based on feelings and emotion, over everything I have and likely ever will.
Far from spending my life playing video games and looking at porn in my parents basement (I have none of the aforementioned vices) I’ve exhausted a classic car hobby for 20 years, live in a very nice home and have a net worth in the 7’s achieved with God’s help and much personal travail. Maybe I travel in small circles but I actually know several financially well off, single, straight men with no kids. Seems to me living under the threatpoint would be counter motivational to a man.
Credit where its do Dalrock, you’re site among others has given me the proper red pill inoculation I and every Christian man needs to avoid spending a living hell on earth chained to a selfish, manipulative, controlling, sexless (and likely overweight) churchian woman that is the plague of modern man.

At the risk of sounding boastful (absolutely not my intention) I’ve been in a financial position since my thirties in which I could retire if I chose and fully expect to retire in just a few more years. Raised in poverty, by parents now married over 50 years, my inspiration to earn and thrive as a small business entrepreneur was the plain obvious one, to earn wealth to provide for *me* a comfortable life. In fact, a big part of my inspiration to stay single has been to avoid having my life and wealth pirated by an impulsive shrew who has been given the legal power to make decisions, based on feelings and emotion, over everything I have and likely ever will.

8to12,
OK, so you can want to be a stay at home mom and not be fully on-board with the patriarchy. OK, sure, I don’t recall claiming that can’t be true.
But these large number do tell us that there are a lot more women interested in at least that aspect of traditional patriarchal marriage than pop culture implies, doesn’t it? Besides, I am not the one making an extreme claim (“…patriarchal marriage is all but dead.”) I am just pointing out that I disagree with you.

Feminism has always understood that most women want what the “patriarchy” offered. The quote from first wave feminism that comes to mind is ” being a housewife must not be an option or too many women will take it.” I can’t find the attribution on Google, but I have read it many times. They always knew thaqt for most women what they wanted would be damaging. That is why they dropped support for the ERA in the 70s. It was a loser among women. They could not sell equal rights to women because women understood that they had and needed protective rights that placed them above men.

She-whom-I-cannot-mention has an outstanding article today about the necessity of women recognizing that they ought to be thankful for men’s sacrifices. Along the way she links to Coontz’s NYT article wherein she whines out of both sides of her mouth about the fact that feminist policies have failed women is provoking feminists to double down. Apparently it’s because of Shriver’s publicationhttp://shriverreport.org/get-the-latest-published-shriver-report-free/
which apparently complains about supply and demand, i.e. plenty of women doing plenty of “women’s work” jobs in our economy lowers the value of those jobs.

I’m contending that while modern women the OPTION to chose the BENEFITS of a traditional marriage, they aren’t willing to accept it whole hog. It’s more of a cafeteria style–they accept the parts that are beneficial to them, but reject (or redefine) the parts that are disadvantageous to them.

Male leadership is a perfect example. There has been a call from Christian women for men to reassert themselves as the leaders of their family. But the way it has been playing out over the past few decades is more like the wife “leading from the bottom.” As long as the husband is leading in the direction the wife wants to go, she submits to his leadership. But let him lead in a direction she doesn’t want to go, and she feels justified in not submitting to his lead.

The threatpoint Dalrock talks about is taught by “Christian” ministries as a tool for wives to use to control and guide their husbands.

Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”) is routinely misquoted and mistaught as saying: “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as they do to the Lord.” Meaning that only as long as the husband is obedient to the Lord does the wife have to be obedient to her husband. And who decides if the husband is being obedient to the Lord? The wife.

And those examples apply to Christian women. How many non-christian women who desire the benefits of traditional marriage do you think really buy into the patriarchal model or just want the benefits without any of the sacrifices?

Mikediver:. The quote from first wave feminism that comes to mind is ” being a housewife must not be an option or too many women will take it.”

It was Simone de Beauvoir, in an interview with Betty Friedan:
“No, we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”

“..Left to their own devices, Japanese men aren’t sure how to find wives — and many are shying away from the hunt, because they simply can’t afford it Wages have stagnated since the 1990s, while housing prices have shot up. A young Japanese man has good reason to believe that his standard of living would drop immensely if he had to house and support a wife and children — especially considering that his wife likely wouldn’t be working.”

The situation is not that dissimilar in North America. The mancession. Women earning more/educated more, yet expecting traditional gender norms of man bringing bacon and spending everything on ‘their’ home. Her money is her money. His money is ‘their’ money.

There is no incentive. There is no reward. Why marry and lose the good life of disposable income, easy living and if you desire, sex on demand with game (or xbox and nintendo it away)?

Excellent research. This is the kind of stuff we in the manosphere need to read to understand the enemy.

It was Simone de Beauvoir, in an interview with Betty Friedan:
“No, we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”

Now having read that, I think in the interview she was lying. I am calling her a liar because it doesn’t make much sense (certainly not for what feminism has morphed into.) To me, she is either lying outright or if she is telling the truth the 3rd wave of feminism looks absolutely nothing like what feminism was to her in her day. Here is what I think she wanted to say (if she wa saying it today), but couldn’t (or wouldn’t), because it would be too hurtfully honest.

“No, we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, only the beautiful women who are able to find a man who would fall in love with them and be willing to financially support them could make that one. And that is not fair or equal for ugly women. It is a way of denying ugly women from an option given only to beautiful women.”

The feminine imperative usually does think that way. But there really is a small subset of women who’re feminists in the most hardcore sense of the word. They hate men, they would like to be rid of us, and they’d murder even Ryan Gosling with an axe if they thought they could get away with it. It’s the feminine imperative as interpreted by people with the Osama bin Laden mentality. People like Simone de Beauvoir are genuinely in that category.

If you think I’m exaggerating, check out the PIV kerfuffle that’s erupted recently, or the SCUM Manifesto if you want a more historically interesting example.

@M3 “a government program that sends female outreach counselors known as “rental sisters” to coax the hikikomori out of the house” is the funniest phrase I’ve read this week. Let’s promote “rental sisters” as a government program here! Sounds like a win win, especially if a mgtow is forced to pony up to pay his “rental sister” to go away.

A SAHM in that scenario is a far different creature than SAHM in a patriarchal marriage. The feminist SAHM is taking a time out from her career to marry and have a child. It’s more of an interlude than a change of direction. It’s not surprising that so many women that follow this path, when they are ready to get back to work, dump their husbands in the 40’s. The husband was just a tool to help her achieve one of the goals on her feminist bucket-list, and once she achieves it she has no long term need for the husband.

I think one thing you failed to mention, and even the author of the PhD artilcle misses, is that men and women do not get the same PhDs. There is no doubt in my mind that the PhDs men acquire are in better paying fields than those PhDs normally acquired by women.

I found it attributed to Vivian Gornick who ever that is. One of them was probably quoting the other who heard it from somewhere.

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.

The feminine imperative usually does think that way. But there really is a small subset of women who’re feminists in the most hardcore sense of the word. They hate men, they would like to be rid of us, and they’d murder even Ryan Gosling with an axe if they thought they could get away with it. It’s the feminine imperative as interpreted by people with the Osama bin Laden mentality. People like Simone de Beauvoir are genuinely in that category.

I agree. But we shouldn’t really concern ourselves with the small subset of women who want to axe murder Ryan Gosling because he has a penis and gets to put it into the tight vaginas of beautiful young girls who do not (nor would they ever) defer their life to the hardcore feminist. We should instead focus on where feminism is (today) for the majority of feminists. And in the sense of winning the lottery (for a feminist) 8-to-12 said it best:

* Party hard from 18 to 23, lots of cocks, lots of substandard education that is “fun to learn” and not hard stuff (STEM)
* Party hard from 23 to 30, lots of cocks, lots of office work where the training involved to fo that work could have been given to a 5th grader, not someone with a Masters Degree in Women’s Studies
* Stop partying at 30, get married to man 35 to 38 (age of maximum earning power while still having maximum sex drive), and breed (no more than 2)
* Frivorce at age 43, 44, or 45, get cash and prizes, stop breeding
* Party hard from 43 to 50-something as “cougar” with young studs, spending money from husband #1
* Late something 50, ex husband is no longer working (or dead) and child support payments have dried up as children are over 18, Re-marry a slightly younger man (may or may not laready have children, hopefully not), use his resources to support lifestyle
* Age 85+ Die

That is kind of where I see the third wave of feminism TODAY. Note (and I am saying this mostly for the benefit of the mental midgets, you know who you are) I am not advocating for such sequence of events. This is just how I see what is happening. So 3rd wave feminists (to me) don’t hate men and want them all axe murdered. They want mules. They want ATMs. They want us earning and marrying them on THEIR terms. Its got to be that way.

So MGTOW, really supremely f-cks up feminism in all its forms with the exception of the hard core feminsts who want all men murdered. But even those hard core feminists, they still want men around for police protection (to enforce feminist laws) and military (to kill those in foreign nations who wish to change those feminist laws) because…. well, because they aren’t going to do those things and I think they are intellectually honest enough with themselves to admit that they CAN’T do those things.

Feminism has always understood that most women want what the “patriarchy” offered.

Parts of the “patriarchy” are now referred to as “benevolent sexism” in academic circles. I guess there is some truth in the first word (Cf. 8to12’s 10:36am comment). The irony is that you can tell they want the benefits of “BS” but still must maintain their outward facing ideology.

And that’s another issue, too: women may admit – privately/confidentially – that they are interested in being a SAHM, but they rarely utter it publicly, and the actual likelihood of them going down that path (to be a SAHM) is much lower. There’s a stigma attached to it, and they want to avoid that (e.g. due to radfems).

@MarcusD says: “…women may admit – privately/confidentially – that they are interested in being a SAHM, but they rarely utter it publicly, and the actual likelihood of them going down that path (to be a SAHM) is much lower. ”

It depends on how they frame it.

Most men would think it ludicrous to take a 15 year hiatus in the middle of their working career to pursue some personal goal, and then expect at the end of that time to be able to pick back up their career right where they left off. Yet, that seems to be the mindset of the college women in the Harvard study (and the other studies I’ve read).

They are NOT thinking “when I become a mother, I’ll put all this feminist stuff behind me and become a traditional wife & mother forever.” No, no, no. The wife and SAHM thing is just a sidetrack; another bucket item to get off their list like their degree, their first job, and banging their first stranger. Being a SAHM isn’t their identity, it’s just a phase they are going though.

When framed like that, there isn’t anything anti-feminist about being a SAHM for a while, because she’s just exploring her options. And feminism is all about a woman being able to explore her options.

Researcher/author Kathryn Edin spent time talking to low-income men about a similar issue. She found that almost universally, the men tried mightily to “get it together” for the incoming babies their girlfriends were bringing into the world. “[L]ow-income fathers who face growing economic adversity are trying to substitute one role for the other.” They try to be even more emotionally invested and loving.

You know the rest of the story: “Here is the problem: Neither society nor their children’s mothers are willing to go along with this trade-off. Love and affection are all fine and good, but who’s going to pay the light bill? What about keeping the heat on? If a child’s father can’t provide money, the attitude goes that he’s more trouble than he’s worth.”

MGTOW presents a long term threat to the hard core feminists. In a life boat scenario an MGTOW says “screw women and children first, either fight me or blow me for a seat.”

Feminism is (largely) taking a 3rd option. If you wont marry them and give them resources they are not going to blow you for them. Certainly not. They are (instead) electing leaders in “state” that empower them at the expense of men who have opted not to marry them under Marriage 2.0.

Look at it this way, with Patriarical Marriage (version 1.0), men did stuff for their wives like take jobs that provide the family health insurance. If they can’t find that at their job, they keep looking for jobs until they find it (only quitting their current job if they good a better one.) If they can’t do that, then maybe they take SECOND jobs (at night, maybe in a warehouse) because that job gives them health insurance. A Patriarch might do that for his family.

We don’t have the Patriarchy. We have marriage 2.0. So men are largely not marrying so women who wanted feminism need to get health insurance for themselves. That’s expensive. They don’t want to pay extra for insurance that covers their own oral contraceptives or mamograms. That is real expensive. So if they aren’t getting husbands and they don’t want to pay for it how can they make the MGTOW pay for these things (because their employers didn’t always want to add those benefits to the health insurance) that feminist imperative says they are entitled?

The affordable care act! Winner-winner chicken dinner. Force EVERYONE’s insurance to require this level of coverage and force MGTOW to buy it! If you wont man up and give them resources, they will just have the state take it from you. Get used to this.

Romance in the inner city typically proceeds quickly. Just six or seven months after they first begin “kicking it,” most of these couples “come up pregnant.” Usually neither he nor she explicitly plans to have a baby, but neither of them does much to avoid pregnancy, at least not for long. Inner-city youth often view condoms as a method of disease prevention, not contraception. They believe that ongoing condom use says you don’t trust your partner to be faithful, so as soon as there is a kernel of trust, the condom stays in the drawer—a ritual marking the transition to a more serious relationship.

Pretty soon, the women are skipping doses of the pill or letting the patch or other forms of contraception lapse. Why? In these communities, motherhood often exerts a strong pull on young women’s hearts and minds and weakens their motivation to avoid pregnancy. Being a mom serves as the chief source of meaning and identity in neighborhoods where significant upward mobility is rare. She realizes that her circumstances aren’t ideal, so she doesn’t explicitly “plan” to get pregnant. But she’ll readily admit that it wasn’t exactly an accident either. She’ll say she knew full well where unprotected sex would lead.

Guys, bring your own condoms. Don’t trust her to take pills. Don’t trust her to give you condoms (she may punch holes in the ones she gives you.) Don’t trust her to throw the used condoms you put in the trash into the garbage (she may fish out the condom and get your semen for later “insertion.”)

They want to be moms.

Better still guys, don’t have sex until you are married. And only marry a woman who believes in the Patriarchy. There, problem solved.

They’ll be strong, independent, ball-busting, take no crap women after four years of indoctrination. They will have backup plans in place and pull the ripcord at the first sign of trouble because dad will support them and the crowds will cheer them.

IBB- “The affordable care act! Winner-winner chicken dinner. Force EVERYONE’s insurance to require this level of coverage and force MGTOW to buy it! If you wont man up and give them resources, they will just have the state take it from you. Get used to this”

This is the issue that took me to the redpill. Not Obamacare, but rather the death of the America I was raised in. I am ready for the state. If they insist on making me a virtual slave, then I’ll insist they make me an actual slave. If strike my right, I’ll my left and demand respect as man. I’ll take the years, and make the state and all of the cowards who support the system either by active support or by going along with it pay for my housing, feeding, and medical care. I know I won’t be missed, I wasn’t wanted in the first place. I can paint badly in prison. It might even make me more attractive to the ladies.

What a lot of Christians seem to miss is that Jesus of Nazareth in addition to being he Mesiah, was also a political revolutionary. Setting aside the devine aspects of the crucifixion, it was also the ultimate act of civil disobedience. I’ll be in good company.

The dads in this article are poor inner city kids. Guys who have little hope for the future. They already know the girl is likely to get pregnant when they stop using condoms. Their reaction to the girl getting pregnant (the majority of times) is:

1) happiness
2) they want to be involved in the child’s life as a father
3) they attempt to be involved with the child and act as a father, but are prevented from doing so by the MOTHER

The bio-dad attempts to contribute with what he has–time. He spends time with the child and tries to help raise the child, but because he is poor he has no money to spend on the child. The mom figures that if the bio-dad isn’t bringing any money to the table, that she’d be better off finding another man to act as dad (hypergamy in action), so she cuts the bio-dad out of the picture and goes chasing after other men. This is the pattern that produces the mom with 4 kids by 4 different man.

The point of the article is that the stereotype of the poor inner-city male that’s screwing every woman in sight and making babies without any concern for the child isn’t accurate.

Eh? Didn’t you previously claim the poor, lonely dearies weren’t doing exactly that, they were just sitting around, pining to be asked to marry?

This She is. To her, that’s fun. Maybe her N is 100 or 10 or maybe just 1. But the N is not 0. She doesn’t give a damn what is written in the Bible. I do care. She doesn’t. She is going to do whatever she wants to do. Your frustration with me about this does no good. I am not encouraging women to do anything. I am only acknowledging what they are already doing.

and there’s no need to copy and paste all of that text. It appears you do not know the difference between a statement of fact (descriptive) and urgng a course of action (prescriptive) or urging against a course of action (proscriptive). Or, you do know the difference, and you are now squirming because you are unable to admit error but are uncomfortable with the truth of your own words. Either way, this “just saying” nonsense won’t work.

Reasons why they are busting their cherries outside of marriage are Legion. Pick and choose any or all or none of the following.#1) They aren’t getting ANY marrital offers.

This bogus claim has already been corrected. Most college women don’t want a marriage offer, they want a “boyfriend”. And as I pointed out to you, they aren’t getting ANY marital offers — from the Alpha Prince of their dreams.

#2) Their hormones are in hypermode (and God Almighty gave us hormones.)
#3) They want to try on different guys to see which one is the best lover? (maybe)
#4) They are on the pill and they figure its not a date if they are not laid? (maybe)
#5) Their girlfriends (who aren’t virgin) are putting them up to it. (Yes.)
#6) They get drunkat college and can’t help themselves? (maybe?)
#7) They went on their first paid vacation and wanted to bang an Islander for the “memory?” (maybe)

In other words, these women are being promiscuous. They are committing what is called “fornication” in the Bible. And you are on the record as saying “I don’t care if women don’t get married before 25”, so you are just fine with this behavior.

Any reasons AR. They are not Biblical. I am not disputing you on that.

No, you are just very, very worried that women might not get to ride the cock carousel as much as they want to. Why, IBB? Why is it so important to you that young women have the option to be as promiscuous as they want to be?

But they are still going to do it. From a personal experience, one of the women from my past bragged to me that she waited until she was 18 and went to Israel because she wanted to lose her virginity to an Israeli solider. That is exactly what she did. That was her dream. She didn’t even know what he name was and she didn’t care, she just wanted to fulfill her twisted dream. Whats done is done. And I would never have recommended that she do that.

So? Is this anecdote supposed to support your pro-promiscuity point of view? In actuality, it contrdacits your “I don’t care” attitude. It in fact supports what Dalrock and others here promote, and that is chastity until marriage, and marriage before 25. Two things you clearly are opposed to, even though they are known factors in divorce. Why do you want to promote more divorce?

This is it for you and me. This is the last time I will discuss this AR. If you mention this one more time that I am encouraging girls to ride the cock carrosel, something I never did, I’ll never acknowledge you again and you would be yelling at no one. You will be shunned.

Translation: “Oh, you beastly man! How dare you persist in pointing out the plain English meaning of my words ! If you persist, I….I….I’ll never speak to you again!.
Once again your beard has slipped, IBB. This is a very womanly threat . It is obvious by now that you are either a woman, or an extremely feminized man. It is obvious that you serve the Female Imperative, not civilization, and therefore it is quite important to you that women have the option to engage in promiscuity. Why? Because hypergamy, because AF-BB, that’s why.

You may fancy yourself “done” with reality, but reality is not done with you.

Maybe a few more rounds, you can “man up” (heh heh) and admit the error of your ways?

IBB to Marissa…that her not marrying between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. It doesn’t. It doesn’t bother me because she’s not getting any offers. I did not say that “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.) didn’t bother me in the least.

That bothers me. But I acknowledge it. That is all I can do.

Well, that’s a small step in the right direction. You could have written this before, of course, but obviously did not want to do that. So you’ll admit to being a sloppy writer, after having had your nose virtually rubbed in your text over and over again for days?

That’s probably all we can expect from you, IBB? “Mistakes were made in my writing”?

Rather disingenous, at best, and outright dishonest at worst. We’ll all have to be very, very meticulous in reading your text in the future, I can see that.

The dads in this article are poor inner city kids. Guys who have little hope for the future. They already know the girl is likely to get pregnant when they stop using condoms. Their reaction to the girl getting pregnant (the majority of times) is:

1) happiness
2) they want to be involved in the child’s life as a father
3) they attempt to be involved with the child and act as a father, but are prevented from doing so by the MOTHER

I understand all of that 8-to-12. But what that article didn’t say (that needs to be said, since it impacts the data) is that marriage in the inner city has been destroyed. It has simply ceased to exist in any meaningful construct. Because it has been destroyed (and women want babies for the reasons the author gave) other forms of families are being formed. These families are entirely dysfunctional. And because it isn’t politically correct to call these other forms of families out for their complete and utter dysfunction, nothing gets done to fix the problem (that is, find ways to encourage marriage.) In order to encourage marriage you must first destroy no-fault-divorce. Feminists will never do that so…. nothing gets fixed. And the inner city is f-cked.

Suburbs in the United States are still largely “first world” because they are still largely marriage centric. But conditions in the suburbs are rapidly deteriorating because marriage is 2.0 and not Patriarichal. The inner city, not so much. That is “third world” culture, almost tribal in its complete socialization and it-takes-a-villiage centric-ness. No marriage. Instead, we have a Sodom that a Lot could never flee. Incest, physical and sexual abuse of children, domestic violence, rampant alcoholism and illegal drug use, strong men dominating weak men, violence in the street, and wealthiest criminal men having harems, all of this is common (one way or the other) in the inner city. Not only does God’s law not apply, neither does man’s law. That may be functional in the Sudan, Afghanistan, or a Brazilian rainforest (since we expect nothign of them but dysfunction), but do we really want to give up all our first world comforts and live like that? No we do not. As a civlized society, the inner city life is (as far as I’m concerned) unacceptable, not tolerated for a second.

For what it is worth, Simone de Beauvoir was more of a 2nd stage feminist than 1st stage. She was the mate of Jean Paul Sarte, and their relationship was frankly pretty ugly in many ways, both inside the bedroom (with various visitors) and elsewhere. Sarte’s treatment of de Beauvoir in many ways is echoed in feminist propaganda right to the present day.

It’s the usual problem that far too many people have with “some” and “all” .

Also, I have wondered off and on how many of the 2nd stage feminists were seriously abused in the sense of beatings, underage molestation, etc. at young ages.

Missed a point re IBB to Marissa on the 20-25 year old women riding the carousel:

That bothers me. But I acknowledge it. That is all I can do.

“That is all I can do”, IBB? Really? So you can’t, for example, post on your own blog something along the lines of “Young women aged 20-25 should remain chaste, and look for a husband”? You can’t do that? You can’t even tickle your fingers on any website in opposition to female promiscutiy? All you can do is sigh, and acknowledge that promiscuous young women exist, and that’s it? This is pathetic. It’s just pathetic.

I have already told my daughter there is no such thing as cheating on a girl friend. (meaning if you are not a wife you are just some bitch a guy is sticking his dick in. Haven’t added that part yet she is 13) Past 24 a woman is past consideration for marriage and is just for dating ( can’t get to hard not yet) These are things my daughter has heard from her dad.

“Dalrock
“we have institutionalized unthankfulness as our response to gracious acts by men.
“We = women in that sentence.”

I disagree. To the degree that there has been an institutionalization of unthankfulness to the role of men in their families, it has been a cross gender effort, trying to sort out quantities of blame to one gender or another is an exercise fraught with risk and guaranteed to result in inaccurate results anyway. I would advise my employer or anyone consulting for my services against such an act.

Second, you also wrote:

“This attitude is widespread in feminist women’s writing about economics and business”.

I will commit anathema to the manosphere, and worse I’ll commit the hubris of appealing to the ghost of Galileo when I do it, but … this is hard for me because I know how much you will reject it but I am very earnest about it. I think you could have re-written that sentence this way and it would be much, much better:

“This attitude is widespread in writing about economics and business”.

I’m working on an article about why and all I can say is that you cannot foresee why I am going to say that we need to stop saying that. I will say now that I think you and Dalrock are from Texas and it’s that weird, but that’s part of it. We are really having a family dispute. Some want to make more of it than that. We can choose not to. I probably won’t persuade you, I very likely will surprise you, and either way at end the one thing I’m sure I can offer you is that I’m earnest in what I say, and between Chicago and Texas … this is a dialectic that’s been overdone. We can put it down and move on. It will be a weird new habit, but you won’t regret it.

“Sadly, i was overlooked for 12 years. With no incentive came no care to try and bust my ass for a dream that wouldn’t come.”

I still have a little drive to make more of myself, because I come from humble beginnings, but yeah, I might’ve pushed myself a bit harder if the women I’d met so far weren’t looking for a turn on the carousel more than they were looking for the white picket fence.

@Badpainter re: January 13, 2014 at 2:12 pm
You wrote:
“From each according to his ability to each according to her need”

It’s cliche so I only write it when I really mean it, but, “lol”.

Right visual: house is dark, kids are asleep, cats are pouncing about the shadows, just finished a late-night meeting with Asia and I’m catching up on my Dalrock over a beer … that one made me chuckle.

Not just the former, the current Bundesrepublik too. You know at some point with these articles and comments a man needs to just move on so sorry if I missed that.

Funny – last night I called for a “dad’s beer night” with some other dads of kids at my kids’ school and politics were raised with one announcing he’s pretty conservative, but then kind of going here, then there on that, hard to pin himself down, but right away just so he wasn’t going to be surprised I counter-announced that I’m probably a lot more liberal than he expects.

So we talked, covered some ground – he’s an entrepreneur, struggling with employees, Obamacare, has some conservative attitudes true, but also came across as much more open to a macro-view then I’d expect of someone who drank too much Cabernet AynRand.

So anyway – at some point it was funny, he says to me, “you’re not convincing me that you’re really that liberal”. Icks. I must be doing something wrong!

Anyway – your question.

Walter Eucken was the economic architect of modern Germany. The funny thing about American economics is we just don’t do Eucken. Conservatives: doesn’t compute. Liberals (a.k.a.: Krugman): doesn’t compute.

I think he’s the closest thing we have to hope. Goes like this: you don’t have enough money to live off of it – you are a worker. You work. You have enough money you don’t need to work – you are an investor, a business-owner, a “capitalist” in the old sense of the term … you will invest your wares in such a way that positively builds the community. Either way – you behave. There’s no “free lunch” for the worker, and there’s no “free market” for the capital-holder.

The market isn’t a “free market”, it’s a “public market”. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto the capitalist his capital. Keep your capital – but everyone owns the market and we design the rules for access to the market such that you will use your capital so that it keeps pumping into the center.

Capital, left to free market forces, by itself concentrates. The result is capital at the top and a thumb-tack shaped polity from there on down. To get a strong middle, a strong center, you must impose forces (i.e.: pre-1950s unions and Homestead Act) that force capital to de-concentrate itself, and flow back through the middle like a tornado.

It doesn’t stop moving. It finds its way back to the capitalist, he still prospers, but not at everyone else’s expense.

One of the selling points of ObamaCare was that it was a feminist triumph. “Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition,” read the lead sentence of a March 2010 news story in the New York Times, whose author, Denise Grady, then explained: “That’s the new mantra, repeated triumphantly by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski and other advocates for women’s health. But what does it mean?”

What it means, in Grady’s words, is that “the new health care law forbids sex discrimination in health insurance.” Just as no one can be denied insurance or charged more because of a pre-existing condition, a woman and a man of the same age must be charged the same premium, and their policies must cover the same conditions–including maternity care for unmarried men (and women past childbearing age).

What it also means, however, is that women, like persons with pre-existing conditions, are more expensive to insure. The ban on what is called “gender rating” drives men’s premiums up as well as women’s down. (That doesn’t mean, by the way, that women pay less under ObamaCare than before. It may be that premiums rise for both sexes but the increase is steeper for men.)

[…]

At any rate, our main reason for bringing this up is not to complain that ObamaCare is in part a scheme for redistributing wealth from men to women, although it is that. (Incidentally, that is true to a far greater extent of Medicare. The sex ratio of the over-65 population is just 77 men per 100 women, and since men tend to earn more money than women, they pay a majority of Medicare taxes.)

“Dalrock
“we have institutionalized unthankfulness as our response to gracious acts by men.
“We = women in that sentence.”

I disagree. To the degree that there has been an institutionalization of unthankfulness to the role of men in their families, it has been a cross gender effort, trying to sort out quantities of blame to one gender or another is an exercise fraught with risk and guaranteed to result in inaccurate results anyway”

Grossly, preposterously incorrect. To say that we can’t assign blame primarily to one gender for the frivorce/bastardy epidemic that’s been going on in America for decades is so intellectually indefensible as to be intentionally mendacious, even unethical.
Support for this:
1) women currently file (and thus cause) the vast majority of (traditionally, thus actually, to say nothing of Biblically for Christians) groundless divorces, especially in marriage involving minor children.
2) women are the gatekeepers of sex and thus reproduction. This comes from how only a very small # of men rakes are needed to service however many millions of sluts who wish to spend their late teens, entire 20s, and half of their 30s riding the cock carousel and/or pop out welfare-garnering prime candidates for Future Felons of America/slut daughters doing just like Mommy. The number of immoral women thus determines the number of bastards, just as it does the number of frivorces.

The market isn’t a “free market”, it’s a “public market”. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto the capitalist his capital. Keep your capital – but everyone owns the market and we design the rules for access to the market such that you will use your capital so that it keeps pumping into the center.

What happens is that everyone pays to the government. I recently heard it explained this way:

“Under capitalism, the rich become powerful. Under socialism, the powerful become rich.”

There are a lot of very wealthy politicians and most that I’ve seen show no signs of legitimate ways to earn their money. In the old days, prostitutes were sometimes arrested for having “no visible means of support”, meaning they had no jobs but still managed to have money so they must’ve been doing something illegal. “No visible means of support” also describes how a politician becomes a millionare after being elected.

“Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, only the beautiful women who are able to find a man who would fall in love with them and be willing to financially support them could make that one.”

Allow a correction:

Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, only the beautiful women who are able to find A SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE man who would fall in love with them and be willing to financially support them could make that one.

“..Left to their own devices, Japanese men aren’t sure how to find wives — and many are shying away from the hunt, because they simply can’t afford it Wages have stagnated since the 1990s, while housing prices have shot up.”

Huh? Wasn’t there an enormous housing bubble in Japan that burst in 1991?

“Could this tradition change? Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants it to. This fall, he renamed his economic plan from Abenomics to Womenomics. “Creating an environment in which women find it comfortable to work,” he told the U.N. General Assembly, “is no longer a matter of choice for Japan. It is instead a matter of the greatest urgency.” […]”Sooner or later,” said economics professor Heizo Takenaka, “Japan will have to face the necessity of immigration.””

It’s safe to say the Japanese are completely screwed. You can stick a fork in them.

When I was younger…I took the fornication idea seriously about not inherting the Kingdom of Heaven despite all my hormones telling me otherwise (however I’m no saint…there was other things in that list I have done).

Now that I am where I am and looking at this society with these women…that was one of the smartest decisions I’ve ever made.

“What happens is that everyone pays to the government. I recently heard it explained this way:
“’Under capitalism, the rich become powerful. Under socialism, the powerful become rich.’”

I’m not completely sure what the upshot is to the point you’re making, but I’ll counter with this.

We know, as a simple empirical matter like we know there are four seasons, shorter and longer depending on latitude, we know that there have been times where whole geographies have enjoyed general prosperity, not just prosperity of the potentates or prosperity of the plutocrats, but general, shared prosperity. I tend to think we’d wish to examine closely what the conditions were in those places and times, and do our best to replicate those conditions.

“Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, only the beautiful women who are able to find a man who would fall in love with them and be willing to financially support them could make that one.”

Allow a correction:

Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, only the beautiful women who are able to find A SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE man who would fall in love with them and be willing to financially support them could make that one.

Granted. And as you can see, this really is about making things easier for all women (looks aside.) Thus we return to the root principle of feminism:

“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life.”

Deal from that absolute principle, and every else about feminism makes sense.

The conditions were an aberration, and had to do with the United States having a virtual monopoly on production during the late 1940s-early 1960s, while the viable competitors were rebuilding from WWII. Once that changed, and the “rest” caught up enough to provide adequate production facilities, that went away. What you are suggesting is getting rid of relatively free trade — good luck with that.

Bluedog, I’m not expressing a “view”, but noting well-known facts about which you seem to be ignorant. That is, 1) women have obtained grossly disproportionatly greater benefits over the past 40 years than men have from various types of affirmative action (includes things like the “p*ssy pass” in the criminal justice system, not just college scholarships/job offers), 2) women destroy families (by filing divorce frivolously) and 3) women now cause rampant (like 1/3 of U.S. births) illegitimacy by misusing their control over reproduction. Facts. Disagree, and you need a drug test.

IBB, true enough, but there’s a corollary you’re not mentioning. That is (roughly), that public feminists all favor forcing social changes that will (at least in her mind, if rarely actually) make the PF more sexually attractive to men she considers attractive.

IBB, true enough, but there’s a corollary you’re not mentioning. That is (roughly), that public feminists all favor forcing social changes that will (at least in her mind, if rarely actually) make the PF more sexually attractive to men she considers attractive.

An ugly woman can’t force a man she is attracted to, to love her and financially support her. All she can do is elect people (in government) to make her whole at the expense of the man who will not grant her resources through marriage 2.0. She is not going to change herself. Feminism is about changing everything else.

Obviously feminism can’t change what men find attractive. But feminism CAN change the system of rewards for those women whom men DO find attractive, such that all women (attractive or not) share as close to equally as possible in those rewards.

@IBB, very good point. Patriarchal monogamy was the resource system designed to let as many beta males as possible procreate with females, i.e. the most egalitarian possible mating system for all, under both assortative and arranged conditions. Feminist nonmonogamy is the opposite, the system designed to ensure that as few beta males as possible procreate with females while still providing resources anyway, i.e. the least egalitarian mating system possible for males.

“An ugly woman can’t force a man she is attracted to, to love her and financially support her. All she can do is elect people (in government) to make her whole at the expense of the man who will not grant her resources through marriage 2.0. She is not going to change herself. Feminism is about changing everything else.

Obviously feminism can’t change what men find attractive. But feminism CAN change the system of rewards for those women whom men DO find attractive, such that all women (attractive or not) share as close to equally as possible in those rewards.”

==================================================================
Agreed, IBB, but you’re forgetting something.
Nontraditional women (sadly the vast majority now) have the delusion that bovine feces liberal arts degrees and fun “careers” make them more attractive to men, rather than being irrelevant or even negatives, as they actually are. So, in their minds, if they (via law, regulation, and custom) force colleges/corporations/gov’t job departments to give them advantages over men, they get a leg up in landing alphas.

Also, more than a few seem to believe that riding the cock carousel (which feminist “careers” and the degrees enabling them make more doable, along with male-invented contraceptives, etc.) actually makes them MORE desirable to “their” kind of men (e.g, uber-alphas they can hoodwink into whatever they want with them, as long as they want them). Many more nontrad women don’t think that it does matter, at least not negatively. Nearly all will indignantly protest (if the subject comes up) that being habitual, long-term carousel riders shouldn’t matter, as if a “rode hard and put up wet” horse is going to be the first choice for bets to win the (marriage) race that starts the next day.

I don’t think there’s a need to go into a point-by-point. When a person goes in to see a shrink, a good one anyway, there’s a process the shrink takes them through where they urge the person to piece apart trouble coming from the outside world, from trouble within themselves, and then for the trouble with the outside world, they try to piece apart things you can do something about, versus things you can’t affect. From there we get down even to a lower level of what you probably could affect, if you stopped and listened long enough to understand how you’ve been coming at something wrong all along. Tell me I’m ignorant and throw any other insults you want into it, none of that really has to do with the upshot of what I’m trying to say here.

I’ll offer you this though – take it or leave it – since you list AA as a concern you have I’ll make a supposition about your background. Going with that supposition, if you have kids: (1) teach them Latin, Greek or Hebrew (I’m not kidding, this is VERY important), (2) teach them a second language – if you don’t already speak an Asian language I recommend German, (3) supplement their school math with Singapore Math – you can be flexible with other curriculums along the way but you can’t go wrong starting with SM and (4) let them try out anything they want when they are young – soccer, kayaking, football, gymnastics, but push them into focusing on one as they get to about 15 yo. Lastly: summer school. Never skip on summer school. Society will assume your kids are privileged, you’d better damn well be sure they are.

Sigh. Where do I start with showing fellow forumites how poorly Bluedog thinks?

1) Singapore Math is a major influence upon Common Core, the latter of which stinks. Robinson Curriculum (among others) has a MUCH better reputation.

2) Learn German? A language that (to paraphrase Mark Steyn) in 200 years will be spoken only in Hell, the demographics for its speakers are that grim? How about instead picking a second language for your kids that the better part of a billion people speak, say, Spanish (sigh), Arabic, Cantonese.

4) Being victim of affirmative action… I’m a Christian conservative heterosexual Northern/Central European white male who is native-born to the U.S. It doesn’t get significantly worse than that for suffering under AA. (Ask me how I know, if you dare.)

Nontraditional women (sadly the vast majority now) have the delusion that bovine feces liberal arts degrees and fun “careers” make them more attractive to men, rather than being irrelevant or even negatives, as they actually are. So, in their minds, if they (via law, regulation, and custom) force colleges/corporations/gov’t job departments to give them advantages over men, they get a leg up in landing alphas.

That is two different issues that aren’t linked. You are talking about two different things:

* Does that Masters Degree in Women’s Studies make men more sexually attractive to me?
* What can I do in do via the state and legislation to make sure that business values that Master’s Degree in Women’s Studies.

I don’t think those are linked because the alphas still want what they’ve always wanted, beautiful, long hair, thin waist, big boobs, birthing hips, but a tight @ss. But if you want to make the list more interesting for the alphas (the alphas that actually value the education), if you want to “link” those two thing then…

* no credit card debt
* no student loan debt
* no car loan debt on the BMW you simply had to have
* screw it, NO DEBT
* a meaningful career that you earned on merit, not a job created for you to account for state legislation or to fulfill some goverment quota

Now a modern alpha might find that attractive. Problem is, none of these things are parts of feminism. So of course, it wont happen so I don’t think your two issues are linked.

Also, more than a few seem to believe that riding the cock carousel (which feminist “careers” and the degrees enabling them make more doable, along with male-invented contraceptives, etc.) actually makes them MORE desirable to “their” kind of men (e.g, uber-alphas they can hoodwink into whatever they want with them, as long as they want them).

No I think the desire for the cock carousel is just (on her part) lust and the orgasm. If she is riding the cock carousel, I would argue that is because some men give her the big “O” (the ones with the porn sized cock) and others don’t. This knowledge is learned behavior that a virgin bride would never learn about, never ever.

The ones that DO give her the big “O” (something that some men simply could never do), do not have to take her out to eat, take her ot the movie, meet her friends and family, don’t have to buy her things, or take her on little trips. She just wants the porn cock.

The ones that do not, she might still have sex with them but only if they also give her resources. No free booty for the guys that can’t reach the G-spot with their little cocks.

This is not about making them more desirable. If men are having sex with them (lots of them) then they have already proven that they ARE desirable (even if it is only for f-ckbuddy status, and not wife status.) If they want to be someone’s wife, an alpha’s wife, she might accidently forget to take a pill?

Many more nontrad women don’t think that it does matter, at least not negatively. Nearly all will indignantly protest (if the subject comes up) that being habitual, long-term carousel riders shouldn’t matter, as if a “rode hard and put up wet” horse is going to be the first choice for bets to win the (marriage) race that starts the next day.

It really doesn’t matter what they say or want and they know it. They can’t make men feel a certain way no matter what they say. So there is two things women can do to get marrital resources from men who don’t give them the time of day:

* Change their appearance to be more appealing to the men that they would want to marry or adjust their behavior very early in life to make sure they don’t make mistakes like riding the cock carousel (the Patriarical model) or
* Change government to force men to part with more of their resources that they are not giving up freely to women because they don’t value these new kinds of women the way they once did (the feminst model.)

The feminist model is easier to follow and master and requires the least amount of work on her part. So she in inclined to do that.

I spent some time reading up on your proposed German Model. I cannot deny it has worked for the Germans. My family is German, and therefore I am ethnically German. I can see the appeal of this model. But I also see the appeal of Wagner, cuckcoo clock, model trains, and H&K firearms, and German Techno . I do have some concerns about how this model can be made to fit any other country without first replacing the population with Germans. As well, Germany’s success is not soley due to this model. There are huge historical externalities that allowed this model to work:

The Marshall Plan

The US paying most of the cost of Germany’s physical defense up to and including providing most of the material and personnel.

The opportunity to completely rebuild the country according to new paradigm with no contentious debates about saving things like old factories, particular jobs, or political reputations. They had a clean slate and no desire to preserve the immediate past.

The German model seems quite reasonable, and more firmly grounded in reality than the religion the of dead gay Englishman, or the ersatz Austrians. But the defense spending category is the keystone to the whole affair. If the US had Germany’s defense spending level as a share of GDP the USA would have a budget surplus today, and would have had budget surpluses every year since at least 1947 if all else is held static. I don’t see how the German model mitigates against that unless the US becomes thoroughly isolationist power (I am in favor of that by the way, if the Chinese want the world let ’em have it).

Badpainter: most of Germany’s best genes are buried in the soil of France and Russia. Further, this sad story of losing your best blood is continuing today, with what, 40% of German women with college degrees never having children. (The Turks in your country are having plenty of kids, of course, but they’re not really German now, nor likely ever will be, are they?)

Europe is certainly committing a slow suicide. The result of guilt for acts not performed by the living. Perhaps they are the only true altruists.

But Germany is not my country, the Germany that my ancestors came from no longer exists having been erased by wars of the 20th century. On the other hand the America I was born in no longer exists having died on 10-26-01.

Dang, Badpainter, I’d go with 04-09-(18)65, LOL. Funny how socialism works well in a small, ethnically homogenous population that has a decent amount of land (correct me if I’m wrong on the land part). I’d say relatively unconstrained capitalism requires similar conditions. A quick glance at the last 50-100 years shows you how to destroy such systems.

You could argue that marrying a debt free woman is the modern version of marrying a virgin.

Prior to meeting my wife, I told a churchianity Pastor once that I was holding out to marry a debt free woman. I didn’t demand that she bring any actual wealth into the marriage. I just wanted that number to not be any less than $0. Zero.

He just smiled and said “Don’t you think you are asking a bit too much?”

As men, this is how we have grown to expect so little of women. I am not sure if this lowered expectations (in this regard) is a direct result of feminism per se, but it sure is the narrative for white knights in churchianity.

Marissa- “Dang, Badpainter, I’d go with 04-09-(18)65, LOL. Funny how socialism works well in a small, ethnically homogenous population that has a decent amount of land (correct me if I’m wrong on the land part). I’d say relatively unconstrained capitalism requires similar conditions. A quick glance at the last 50-100 years shows you how to destroy such systems.”

That’s a valid date, and so is your larger point. I chose the date our tyrants legislated away the remains of the constitution.I chose that date because it represents the death of the America I was born into. What happened in 19th century is just history to me, I never got the chance to live there.

In light of that I offer the following dark joke:

Q: Why is called the NSA?
A: Because Americans can’t spell Geheime Staatspolizei.

Dang, Badpainter, I’d go with 04-09-(18)65, LOL. Funny how socialism works well in a small, ethnically homogenous population that has a decent amount of land (correct me if I’m wrong on the land part). I’d say relatively unconstrained capitalism requires similar conditions. A quick glance at the last 50-100 years shows you how to destroy such systems.

The United States of America (prior to the end of our Civil War) was not afully functional one. You could not have slavery AND be a “first world” nation. Good that those United States died. From that moment on, we were truly on our way up! And no one was going to catch us…

…until…

…. August 18th, 1920.

It’s been all downhill since (slow, gradual descent at first, now a steady and steep dive.)

“”Prior to meeting my wife, I told a churchianity Pastor once that I was holding out to marry a debt free woman. I didn’t demand that she bring any actual wealth into the marriage. I just wanted that number to not be any less than $0. Zero.””

Yes!…..I would also!….Great comment!

“”He just smiled and said “Don’t you think you are asking a bit too much?”””

No I do NOT!…..even though I could retire her debt with my Visa Card….I DEMAND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!…….Shalom Mister Pastor!

I see you picked individual sports over team sports for your kids. Any thought to this? I was captan of the swim team in HS. At 55 looking back on my life i know a team sport would of been better, or joining the military to learn self discipline. Something that would make me learn to stand up for myself. After 25 years working in a power plant i found myself in a posision of authority. My boss and coworkers decided to make me more authoritative. I will not go into how, but the men under me were not happy with the change. Now, i get calls from them about how much more they enjoy working for me as to the other control center operators. Now i am just used to people doing what i tell them. I even tell managers above me what i need done. My point to this is that you need something to teach your children to stand up. I keep hearing you ( those in this blog ) tell men to ” Man Up ” but you never tell them how!!! How can a child rasied by a new aged mommie know how to ” MAN UP ” ? We know what we want to happen, to fix this mess feminest have brought down upon us. You have many great ideas about it. But stop and think about the tools you have to work with!! I think you great thinkers need to spend more time sharping your tools. How do they ” MAN UP “. For those growing more tools, how do they learn to stand up for themselves?

Your son is 6’4″ and weighs 257 pounds. You think he’ll make a good (or even average) swimmer or cross country runner? No.

Your son is 5’11”, 190 pounds and runs the 40 in 4.8 seconds. Can’t do anything in a pool, can’t run distance. He’s great at track though. (Of course he gets blown away by the 130 pound spinals that run the hundred.)

The thing is, American rules football is extremely dangerous sport. It is. And if you don’t want your son playing it, there is probably good reason for it. But certain sons of certain fathers have body types that are just designed for contact sports. You can Patriarically prevent him from playing. You could ask him to play other sports. But certain sports are goign to come much more natuarlly to him.

For me, I was a 14 year old defensive linemen in high school. I was way too fat to soccer, cross country, anything like that. But I could squat a lot of weight and my lower body strength (at age 14) enabled me to leg press almost 700 pounds (yes seven-hundred.) I was born to play football, born to squat on the line and make piles and tackles. Playing football (not baseball, soccer, or cross country) was where I was alpha. So…

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do know history are doomed to watch it being repeated, knowing what is to come and not being able to do anything about it. Think Casandra’s curse.

Mikediver- “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do know history are doomed to watch it being repeated, knowing what is to come and not being able to do anything about it. Think Casandra’s curse.”

Indeed.

16 days in to the 14th year of new century. I’m not looking to having personal theory proven right, and I won’t know if I’m wrong until 2040.

Badpainter: ” I do have some concerns about how this model can be made to fit any other country without first replacing the population with Germans”
Well it certainly worked for England (former Brittania/Lloegr), even the Monarchs are German, to make a matching set with the (typically, germanically, arrived-too-early-for-work (like, by 1,000 years) peasantry. After that, they got themselves an Empire (and almost immediately lost an annoying, absurdly remote, GULag-type colony).
Solzhenitsyn in the Arkhipelag said the (I think it was Volga or Crimean) Germans were called “willows” because you could plant them anywhere, and they’d grow.

Luke, have you considered cricket? It’s really quite safe (unless you’re Irish), and only the bowlers need to be tall. And appreciating beer doesn’t hurt.Helmeted soccer? Never heard of such a thing. Is this what they do over there? Would make it fundamentally unplayable, IME. Like blindfold pool, or drunk fencing.

Association Football is an inherently safe game, favoring undernourished, bandy-legged rickets-cases with bad lungs and a drink problem, as it was designed to, since the mill-hands, foundrymen and miners couldn’t afford to be crocked of a Monday morn or it was the workhouse on Tuesday next, for the whole family. Developed from posh boys’ school sports by mid-victorian clergymen, to stop things like “purring” (lethally violent clogfights), Cornish/Cumberland wrestling, and stickfighting, all frequently fatal.

Farmers, of course, played rugby football like the gents, as a month off with broken bones or brain damage could be easily accommodated by one’s relatives, and the seasonal nature of pre-artificial-lighting country life (Atlantic winter, north of the 50th parallel. What are you going to do, apart from interfere with your relatives/livestock?).
Tennis is an excellent game for young men, as it exercises the northern european male physique correctly, originating in a (happily non-lethal, for once) aerobic training system for swordsmen.

“I don’t think those are linked because the alphas still want what they’ve always wanted, beautiful, long hair, thin waist, big boobs, birthing hips, but a tight @ss. But if you want to make the list more interesting for the alphas (the alphas that actually value the education), if you want to “link” those two thing then…”

* no credit card debt
* no student loan debt
* no car loan debt on the BMW you simply had to have
* screw it, NO DEBT
* a meaningful career that you earned on merit, not a job created for you to account for state legislation or to fulfill some goverment quota

I might be wrong, but i thought a alpha was a man just after sex. ” the bad boy” the girls got tingle from!! When i was a alpha i did not give a rats arse about her…she was just a sexy girl i wanted to have. Or a innocent girl i wanted. I realy thought i would give her the big O, and for the rest of her life she would always compair others to me!! I loved the new school year at collage, all those innocent girls looking for a experienced upper class man to guide them. 1) we never liked birthing hips. 2) long hair? Like what does that matter? ITS ALL ABOUT THE CONQUER!!!
* no credit card debt?
* no student loan debt?
* no car loan debt on the BMW you simply had to have?
* screw it, NO DEBT?
* a meaningful career that you earned on merit, not a job created for you to account for state legislation or to fulfill some goverment quota?

YOU GOT TO BE JOKING!!!!!!!!

Do you think for a second we even thought about these things??? Ok, i know now you are one of two. A woman pretending to be a man, or some man that thinks he knows about being a alpha. I am not trying to insult you ibb.
I was even a Life Guard for 3 years. I got lots of play then…..
I might of been a passive man back then, but i knew how to play the game well. When a 30+ showed up at the collage bar, i was on her in a flash…. Easy sex…
OMG.. to bed a woman driving a BMW. MERC. EXC… And i had not a pot to piss in. YEA…..
It is all about the CONQUER!!!!!
There is only 2 things a alpha wants!!!
1) SEX…
2) THE CONQUER!!!!

Your son is 6’4″ and weighs 257 pounds. You think he’ll make a good (or even average) swimmer or cross country runner? No.

IBB stay away from sports please. If your son is 6’4 and i don’t care about the weight he can do very well in swimming. Swimming is all about upper body strength. The legs just keep your body level. Trust me in this as a X swimmer, the weight will come off. Body fat will drop to about 7% or less.

OK, I’m starting to suspect that one of you fellas is moonlighting in drag as Sabrina Schaeffer. She’s the author who wrote…

The Shriver Report, however, disregards how government has created perverse incentives through a ballooning welfare state, government-run schools, and disincentives to marry, which have worsened the lives of many American women…

Fess up. Who wrote this article? We ought to congratulate you for the statusy gig at Forbes. In the mean time, I’m starting that magic countdown until the totally unbiased feminists of the Jezebel crowd goes over en masse and posts their usual well-reasoned and eloquent rebuttals like : WOW! JUST WOW! and HOW CAN A PERSON LIKE THIS EXIST?

I’m starting that magic countdown until the totally unbiased feminists of the Jezebel crowd goes over en masse and posts their usual well-reasoned and eloquent rebuttals like : WOW! JUST WOW! and HOW CAN A PERSON LIKE THIS EXIST?

I actually wrote a comment generator for left-wing websites that takes a random sentence from the page, quotes it, and writes “This.” a random number of times (between 1 and 7, in my usual use case). I think I’ll create different situation modes (e.g. “supportive” or “not supportive”) so that I can include the oft-repeated “Wow. Just wow.” line.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do know history are doomed to watch it being repeated, knowing what is to come and not being able to do anything about it. Think Casandra’s curse.”

Amen. Throw in some literature, especially the old stuff, and Casandra will at least be able to laugh at the absurdity of her predicament.

The Shriver Report, however, disregards how government has created perverse incentives through a ballooning welfare state, government-run schools, and disincentives to marry, which have worsened the lives of many American women…

Never mind the rest of the population that have been screwed over from this travesty. It’s hurting women so we need to address this.

We have discussed this nonsense before, IBB. They aren’t getting ANY marital offers because they are never presenting themselves as approachable to the men that would make those marital offers, and the reason they aren’t doing so is that they aren’t serious about marriage at all.

The reply to Searching Sue (the unhappily married woman) is really quite shocking. The responder is a Roman Catholic, yet her advice is ‘get divorced, get lots of alimony and whilst your about it not withstanding the fact that you and he have two children and have been together for ten years, seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of real consent’. Even His Late Majesty Henry did not have the nerve to push the Pope that far.

Are there no good Catholic women any more?

Is it any wonder that men in droves are avoiding the appropriately named Wedlock.

I wrote this, not IBB:
“3) Football for my kids? NFW. The brain, spine, and joint injuries are too likely, too severe, and too permanent. (That knocks out lacrosse, rugby, Aussie rules FB, and arguably unhelmeted soccer as well.) Better long-distance running, distance swimming or best of all) walking/hiking.”

I will add that I so far only have daughters (very young), but hope for a son this year.
I personally participated in varsity long-distance running in high school, intramural karate in college, and extensive hiking in my 40s (hiked whole Appalachian Trail and Pinhoti Trail). I have no idea if helmets are allowed for any level of soccer, but none of my kids will be allowed to play it without one on. (Not a big fan of what “heading” a hard ball does to young brains.)

@JDG, h/t Boxer Re: Schaeffer. “Never mind the rest of the population that have been screwed over from this travesty.” This.

It’s reminiscent, to me, of the complaints about fast food, which culturally used to be a rare alternative just a couple of generations ago. Consumers complain “This cake tastes terrible, and the portions are too small.” But pundits are all focused on complaining about restaurants enabling consumers to either have the cake or eat it too. “We should force them to include vegetables. They shouldn’t have Happy Meals, they should instead have unhappy Healthy Meals only. But prohibit them from raising prices, because we want people to eat healthier.” says one group. The other group says “It’s the cheap calories causing the obesity epidemic! People don’t want to eat this stuff but can’t help themselves. So, force them to raise prices, maybe with a per-calorie tax.”

The problem with the safety net is neither that it has too many holes in it nor that it is too small. In some ways the problem is both, although in another way the real problem is its existence at all. Use of government programs as an alternative lifestyle ought to be strongly seriously discouraged culturally. If a trapeze artist starts to get most of her applause for falling to the safety net and bouncing well, or gets a raise for entertaining the crowd making them laugh as if she were a clown having fun and waving while on the net, pretty soon most of her action takes place at net level instead of the high wire. But if the barker incites the crowd to jeers, and a pay cut, for her falling then probably she’ll feel she has to perform better. Make it hurt at least a little when she falls, and maybe she won’t fall as much.

A tight-knit large safety net that hurts a little. For example, anyone who really needs, really needs, assistance ought to be exceedingly grateful for a cot in a crowded hostel with a bowl of gruel.

I’ve resisted the dogpile on IBB so far, not because I agree with him, but because I’m of the opinion that excusing female excesses is sorta hard-wired into us. The programming becomes active with the birth of a daughter. I’ve seen countless examples. “What? My little precious would never do such a thing!” etc. I think it’s a genetic benefit for guys to overlook their own kids dalliances with the DJ and such, so I don’t really blame them.

They aren’t getting ANY marital offers because they are never presenting themselves as approachable to the men that would make those marital offers, and the reason they aren’t doing so is that they aren’t serious about marriage at all.

In my experience, no marital offers implies the girls are giving off the “slut” vibe rather than the “wife” vibe. Human males are pretty stupid, but they can generally pick slut tells fairly well.

A girl who wants a husband should laser off her skanky tats, take all the weird piercings out, start wearing dresses and grow her hair long. She should dump her skank friends and start running with other *marriage material* girls.

I come to praise Boxer (Friends, Americans, Foreigners) – How often have I seen it: The Father who believes his darling daughter is as pure as snow. The daughter is then in a difficult position because revealing the truth to Father is more than he will be able to stand (and her too). She then has to play along with his fantasies even though she is twenty-eight. She really is more or less a virgin who is indifferent to all those boys who chase her, and for whom she has not the time of day, she really is in X although he could swear that the line is so clear she sounds as she is just down the road (as indeed she is) and that man presently in police custody really did force her against her will (even though any objective view of the evidence would not support that view) and the guy who answers her telephone so often is really just visiting (even though it is in reality his apartment).

I have to second this. Considering how low standards are these days, in large (heh) part due to the obesity epidemic, just being height-weight proportional is a leg up. It’s like women are expecting to be given a job without applying or accumulating the skills necessary for it.

I once counseled a young lady that was most definitely not a skank. She was an engineer who I worked with who had trouble getting dates. She was presentable, so I asked where she lived. At age 28, with an engineering degree, making about the same income I did raising a family of 5 kids, she lived at home with her parents. I told her she needed to move into an apartment or house of her own to signal that she was a grown up and ready for a serious relationship. She was engaged within 6 months.

Signals do matter. If you are acting like marriage material then you will get dates and relationships and marriage; at least if you are a female and not hideous.

We have discussed this nonsense before, IBB. They aren’t getting ANY marital offers because they are never presenting themselves as approachable to the men…

The nonsense that has NOT yet been discussed (at least not to me) is exactly HOW these girls can present themselves as approachable. Those are your words hollen.

As far as I’m concerned (culturally) the only women that I felt were truly unapproachable were the ones wearing a gold band or a diamond on the 4th finger of their left hand. If she’s not wearing one of those, she’s approachable. So be very specific hollen because you were the one who is mentioning this, what exactly do you expect them to do?

I’m a big believer in the manosphere guys, huge. But if want to change things, turn things around, you need to define exactly what the problems are and how best to resolve them. Rhetoric gets us nowhere. Saying no woman would ever marry you when you’ve never asked one, that is on YOU.

Re: “Saying no woman would ever marry you when you’ve never asked one, that is on YOU.” A lot of men got too tired of every woman always constantly saying no to anything he ever suggested when he was younger, especially seeing the women saying yes to the few wrong guys, and give up until there is a sign from God or from a Woman, whoever decides to go first. It literally is too much, much much too much, to ask a 28 yr old virgin male to suddenly start asking 28 yr old women to marry him after he gave up asking women out on dates years ago since zero ever said yes to him. His turtling is completely rational, and kicking him will only make him draw in tighter.

Re: “It’s like women are expecting to be given a job without applying or accumulating the skills necessary for it.” As a one-time small business owner and long-time frontline manager of many dozens of women through the years, I have several such employment stories.

I have to support IBB: How often is it that some ‘ugly duckling’ who everyone else had been overlooking suddenly is seriously dating a guy you know, and almost overnight turns from a duckling into a Swan – to ones amazement. That scraggy, scrawny, insecure, ill-dressed girl who could not apply make-up with any skill, is now surrounded by guys licking their lips in frustrated admiration.

@Opus
It’s gotten rather ridiculous. CAF, as a forum, is a danger to Catholicism. The organization itself (that is, Catholic Answers) is generally okay. The popular notion of annulment being “Catholic divorce” is either apt, or becoming more accurate every day.

If you are born in Western Civilization with an IQ less than 100, yes, you will be richer than people 100 years ago simply because of technology and all the freebie infrastructure that is made available to you. But you have a much slimer chance of getting ahead as there are very few employment or marital opportunites for you (this goes for both men and women.)

I got banned from Catholic Answers (and I sweartagawd, they banned me fifteen minutes after posting my first and only article) for politely questioning the annullment concept. In legal terms, my understanding is that an annullment is something issued when the marriage license was found to be fraudulently obtained, or when one or both parties are later found ineligible (marriage to one’s adopted and long-lost sister, etc.) Not a lawyer, and not trying to play one on the internet. This is just a layman’s observation that seems to square with Opus’ more informed opinion.

The way Catholics on CAF use the word is more commensurate with the definition of “divorce” in this regard. They know this themselves, I assume, which explains their frantic booting of me, before the digital ink was even dry on my observation.

And, also, not being holier than thou. I’m not a Catholic and not passing judgment, I just think people should use the correct words and own up to what they’re doing.

My people (the Mormons) divorce each other like nobody’s business, and have no shame in doing so. We have a religious proceeding too (called a dissolvement) but this doesn’t pretend to be different than divorce or legal dissolution in any real respect, it’s just our folk religion’s word for divorce in a religious context (like a Jewish get, not, in theory, like a Catholic or legal annullment).

Re: Dalrymple. Thanks for the suggestions. I have been meaning to read Life At The Bottom for some years but I kept forgetting. I haven’t read nearly as many books as usual the past couple of years, and I need the prodding.

Based on the threads I’ve read, that’s the likely purpose. I’ve made a note (i.e. a list) of people who were talking about getting an annulment. They frequently start dating within a few months. Just spin the wheel, and pick a reason for the marriage not being valid.

Basically, an annulment is a formal declaration that the marriage wasn’t valid (i.e. that it didn’t meet all necessary criteria). There’s a wide range of reasons for that. Someone lying to you (e.g. saying “I’ll marry you if you are a prince” and they’re not) will be an invalid marriage. Incidentally, a number of people on CAF have defended deception as an acceptable way to get someone to marry you.

You’re right, though, people are just “spiritualizing” civil divorce – just a rubber stamp process.

The vast majority of US annulments are granted onthe basis of defective consent pursuant to canon 1095. There is a very good book at the phenomenon of liberal annulment in the states by Robert Vasoli entitled “Let No Man Put Asunder” that exposes the whole matter for all who care to take a peak. It is quite chilling reading for anyone purporting to be a devout Catholic as it exposes a very scary change in the Church’s defense of marriage. Vasoli was (book was written in the late 90’s; he died in the mid-2000’s) a sociology professor from Notre Dame who successfully defended his wife’s attempt at annulment (she would have already been civilly divorced from him by the time of her petition).

The idea that two people could enter a putative marriage wherein one or both of the parties was incapable of understanding the obligations related thereto is conceivable at least in theory. Such a union would not be valid in the eyes of the Church could (and perhaps should) be declared null in defense of the institution itself. What has happended in practice is that the Church has used the liberal granting of annulments as a pastoral solution to bring divorced Catholics back into the fold. To do so, all manner of legal and logical gymnsastics have been employed to argue that otherwise sane, normal well-adjusted people, albeit some with difficulties in their marriage, were somehow incapable of understanding the promises they were making. These same promises were, for he first 2,000 years of the Church’s history considered to be comprehendable by teenagers. Annulments based on defective consent are rountinely awarded oftentimes many years after the vows were exchanged on the basis of specious psychological evaluations to purport to know the mental states of people at the point of marriage (Vasoli explores the influence of the helping professions in creating cover for the annulment machine).

In the mid 1960’s the US church annulled (declared null is actually the more correct term) only several hundred marriages a year; within a couple of decades that number grew to around 60,000. The change at least coincided Vatican II, although VII per se did not specifically change canon law regarding annulments. It is fairly safe to argue that the waves of liberalism sweeping over Catholicism at that time drove both phenomena. Since the mid-80’s annulments granted have declined from their peak; this probably has more to do with the clearing of pent-up demand and cynicism on the part of Catholics than a tightening of the rules (both JPII and Benedict XVI offered skepticism of the US tribunals, but did not hold any feet to the fire). Most modern, liberal Catholics catechised in the period immediately prior to and since VII would not make the connection that Catholics’ apparently dim view of the sacrament was adversely influenced by the annnulment explosion.

Annulment may occur when the marriage is void ab initio or voidable. Otherwise the marriage is valid in which case a Divorce is what occurs and where I am you can also be Judicially Separated, which is not Divorce but is fairly pointless anyway.

I would say (I am talking Law here not Canon Law) that being mislead as to your spouses Bank Balance was not a ground for annulment anymore than sleeping with a man because he said he was rich when he wasn’t is Rape.

Can’t really see the point of being Catholic if its members don’t like the rules. I guess the Church don’t want their flock running off to some Protestant Church more suitable to their feelings.

Re: get out of jail free membership card. I’ve got nothing against Catholics. Some of my best friends are Catholics, but I wouldn’t want my sister to marry one.

It is false that conservative Protestant church-attenders divorce more frequently than Catholics and is it false that they are more accepting of divorces of members (except for adultery). However some do foster a wash-the-past-away mentality among the membership even if not preaching it explicitly. What tends to happen, among people church-hopping to avoid judgmentalism about being divorced, is that Sincere Repentance is apparently easier to discern occurring in brand-new members, especially if they are converting to True Christianity for hopefully either the first time or last time. Although someone going from Baptist to Presbyterian, e.g., is hardly converting per se. Which may explain part of many Protestants’ anathematizations of Catholicism: our water is washier.

I would say (I am talking Law here not Canon Law) that being mislead as to your spouses Bank Balance was not a ground for annulment

It is defective consent (in Canon Law). It’s quite serious to be misled as to the qualities of your spouse, especially when the decision to marry is based upon them. In the legal sense, I’m not sure how it would work (though, if something were signed to that effect, I’d imagine there’d be consequences for the person who lied).

—

I guess the Church don’t want their flock running off to some Protestant Church more suitable to their feelings.

That is my suspicion, as well. They are accommodating in order to maintain membership (and, perhaps cynically, the flow of money). Much more to be said about liberalization in the Church…

In reality, the evidence seems stacked the other way as Roman “Catholic” Supreme Court judges hold the cultural and legislative bar ever lower with their Talmudic Jewish brethren in a Satanic communist match made in hell.

Never let someone tell you that the Roman churchmen are the “real conservatives” in the room.

@hurtingWhat has happended in practice is that the Church has used the liberal granting of annulments as a pastoral solution to bring divorced Catholics back into the fold.

This is why Pope Francis’ comments on the matter have concerned me. Of course, people will say, and I quote: “Many more Catholics today contract invalid marriages because they don’t understand or accept the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.” In all models, it’s a disaster.

Since the mid-80′s annulments granted have declined from their peak; this probably has more to do with the clearing of pent-up demand and cynicism on the part of Catholics than a tightening of the rules

The Catholic marriage rate has gone down significantly.

Annulments
28,918 in 1974
35,009 in 2007

Marriages
415,487 in 1972
168,400 in 2010

8.6 marriages per 1,000 U.S. Catholics in 1972
2.6 marriages per 1,000 U.S. Catholics in 2010

.. there’s a woman who has a “ticker tape” counting up the days she’s been seeking annullment, “3 years, 5 months, 3 weeks since seeking annulment”.
Okay I read a little further down…another woman has a ticker tape counting up the days she’s been married, “3 years, 7 months, 1 week, 5 days since our wedding”.
Do people have to wait a long time for annulment?”

Now then Marissa, that haz give me a sadz.
I actually retain part-smoked cuban cigars of greater antiquity.
And please, don’t inquire after the age of any of my shoes.
Come to that, I have hats made of Irish tweedy stuff, with fish-hooks in, that are decades older the your run-of-the-mill feminist/catholic divorcee/ civil-partnership-annulling droid.
Dammit I need a smoke now. See wot U dun? I hope ur happy .. etc.

Be sure to check out the comments – some of them are entertaining, to say the least.

E.g.: And as for the 2nd point, yes it has the potential to annoy them, I concede. But don’t you worry. They will read that, next day they will launch another movement saying that women still aren’t getting enough from alimony, a law should be made such that in any divorce women get 90% of the property by default. And the scariest thing is that it WILL get implemented. Feminists are the new age terrorists (of course at the mercy of wannabe compassionate and indulgent male population) and the world’s most hypocritical people.

“Because the guys that are chasing them the most and letting them f-ck their brains out, those are the great looking alpha guys, guys that may be all flash and show (albeit no real substance or future.) They are not going to go out and propose marriage. […] You are trying to apply sincere principles to men whom those most sexy young women allow close to them when we both know that the majority of these alphas, they don’t have principles.”

“The nonsense that has NOT yet been discussed (at least not to me) is exactly HOW these girls can present themselves as approachable. […] what exactly do you expect them to do?”

I can tell you a couple of ideas, all of them based on the assumption that it’s betas, not alphas, that are likely to make marriage proposals in the first place, but obviously they aren’t going to make them to women they just met for the first time, plus they need some sort of covert or overt encouragement from the woman in question before making a proposal. I also assume the women in question are interested in marriage and don’t want to delay it indefinitely.

1. Regularly visit places and venues where betas are likely to be present.
2. Don’t deploy the bitch shield. Indicate interest in getting asked out. Don’t bring the girlfriends along (no beta is going to approach a group of chattering women), smile, don’t show body language that indicates being an unapproachable, busy diva, don’t dress like a slut. Allow betas to get close to you.
3. Don’t do nuclear rejections. Be polite and friendly towards the betas that ask you out.
4. Don’t waste any time on alphas that would never propose marriage anyway.
5. When you get asked out by the kind of man that is likely to propose marriage sometime in the future, say yes and start dating him.

“If you are born in Western Civilization with an IQ less than 100, yes, you will be richer than people 100 years ago simply because of technology and all the freebie infrastructure that is made available to you. But you have a much slimer chance of getting ahead as there are very few employment or marital opportunites for you (this goes for both men and women.)”

Yup. That’s the big difference between an American prole guy in 2014 and an American prole guy in 1914. The latter had a reasonable chance of entering a stable marriage and earning the respect of his community by assuming the role of father and husband. He could also trust his government, religious leaders and the media to promote virtues that serve his long-term interests. He could also trust that he will have economically productive children and grandchildren supporting him when he becomes old and frail. He also had a reasonable hope that his children can rise above him in social class.

@Hollenhund2 4:39am-
Even for a prole (my dad still works in a warehouse, I’ve been in architecture for just over twelve years now) with a high IQ, it’s a long slow grind for 2014 as compared to 1914. You not only have to have the ability and willingness to do the work, you always have to be careful of not intimidating the people in the management positions above you. I always think ‘The slow knife penetrates the shield’ from Dune.

I think many men subconsciously “MGTOW” in modern America. I mean, I am no MGTOW, but the risk of marriage is so high that my standards in a woman’s character have become high to compensate – so high that women I might marry I have to break up with because their character isn’t so high that it exceeds the risk of American marriage.

A few years ago our pastor shared with us some statistics on changing worship patterns amongst Americans. One that stuck with me was that the largest source of enrollment for the non-denominational church s here is former Catholics. Some point to a need to modernize the liturgy, etc., but I suspect the main reason for the departure is that these former Catholics do not actually truly believe in the immutable laws of the Church, namely its proscriptions against abortion, birth control, divorce (w/remarriage) and homosexuality. Of these four, only the last two necessarily involve outward, public behavior where one’s sins have to be exposed to others on a fairly broad scale. Those affected by the last two behaviors just leave the Church altogether and/or eventually turn to a church that tells them what they are doing is not sinful.

The annulment mill’s defenders often trot out the tautological argument that there are more declarations of nullity because there are truly more null marriages and that, in their eyes, it’s because there are, apparently many, many more people lacking the capacity to consent. These people would have you believe that the Church was wrong for 2,000 years in believing that the requirements for sacramental marriage are relatively easy to comprehend if at times somewhat challenging to uphold.

If the Church was really concerned about the mental maturity of people to enter marriage, it would require psychological evaluations on the front end to ascertain fitness instead of relying on such evaluations often many years after the fact. It does not require them (unless you count compatibility questionnaires used in pre-Cana training) so as to offer the later ‘out’ for failed marriages.

As you point out the Church rightly recognizes the nullifying effect of simulated consent, or that based on deception, but the problem is with ‘capacity to consent’ annulments.

As to Pope Francis words on the subject, I’ll confess ignorance. JPII and Benedict XVI both admonished the US tribunals to examine their processes but took no meaningful action to correct the problems.

Not sure to whom/what you are referring with the term catholic supreme court or whether your comment is focused on the topic of annulments, but it should be noted that the true ‘supreme court’ for the adjudications of petitions for declarations of nullity is the Rota in Rome. It routinely overturns a very high percentage of annulments granted in the US.

A 40-year old woman lies a man about taking the pill, gets pregnant, but (apparently) isn’t happy with her lie. She writes a letter to Washington Post advice columnist Carolyn Hax. Our moral, Republican, tradcon therapist thinks it’s better to cover the big lie with another lie, told carefully in a public place meeting with the man ‘because in public places people are much more likely to be better behaved’.

“I always wanted kids, but fate and life being as it is, I’d managed to get to my early 40s with no husband or children. Not from lack of trying, I assure you, but nothing took.”

“Three months ago, I started seeing a nice guy. He has potential. But I feared he’d go the way so many had: dating for a while, then moving on. This time I was determined to at least try to get something of what I want, so I did what I never thought I’d do. I lied when he asked if I was taking birth control. My bad luck coupled with the pure statistical improbability of it all really led me to believe I had little to no chance of getting pregnant.”

“Well, I’m looking at a positive pregnancy test. How do I do this? How do I tell this man I barely know that I lied to him and, hey, sorry but I’m about to torpedo your life?”

And there you have it……….another guy caught in a web of deceit because he trusted a woman on a fundamental issue like birth control. What is more maddening is the white knighting by the therapist towards the end of the article.
Now, we get to the tricky part. Did she really lie and should she confess her lie to her lover?

“True enough, she said she was on birth control when she was not. On the other hand she thought to herself that she was too old to conceive, and thus, despairing of ever getting pregnant, she did not feel a need to use contraception.”

“One might say that she has defrauded her lover. Or, one might say that she decided to leave it in God’s hands … by practicing her own version of the rhythm method”

Classic bullshit…….WOW. ‘Her own version of the rhythm method’. LOL……Ever hear of a little word called ‘accountability’? It is not just applicable to men.

“What should she say? She should say that her birth control failed. Yes, I know, it sounds like another lie. But still, making it seem like an act of God is better than making it look like an act of fraud.”

WTF? It seems like an act of fraud because it IS an act of fraud!!!

“We, like Hax, are avoiding the legal issues. I don’t know what the common law says about these circumstances, but I suspect that it would hold him accountable for his child.”

No shit, Sherlock!

“By framing the issue as we suggest, the women will be allowing him to do the right thing, freely, of his own volition. She should not make it appear that she is now going to force him into being a father or a husband.”

And yet no discussion at all of what ‘the right thing’ might have been for her actions. No sense dwelling on the past….your life is fucked sir, no one’s fault……it just haaaaapened. She cannot force him into being a husband, but she has CERTAINLY forced him into being a FATHER.

“Under these circumstances, any man who is not a complete clod will step up and accept his responsibility in the matter. He will, almost surely, want to be part of his child’s life, in one way or another. But, he is more likely to want to do so if he does not feel that he is being pressured or forced to do so.”

So, with a little man-shaming language……you are a complete clod (read clusterfuck) if you do not accept responsibility in the matter. Man Up, Asshole!! No need for her to accept responsibility at ALL…….the system has her back.

All the pressure in the world has just fallen on the shoulders of the man in question in this article. She is absolved of all responsibility, he is held doubly accountable.

Utter bullshit……….but a spot on transcribing of the feminist narrative.

The guy should either expat or go ghost. Alternatively, he (logically, I’m NOT advocating he do this) could either kill her, or just TELL her (falsely or not) that he would kill her if the pregnancy went to term (especially if she hits him up for unmarried chilamony (“child support”). I hope he does the patriotic thing and not put one red cent into the maw of this monstrous broad. Now, if he offers (in advance) to take the child from her post-birth for no CS commitment or visitation/custody rights by her, that’s legit in my mind. CS after all is traditionally what a man provides his legitimate children in his own house; if any such children are kept away from his table not by his own fault (are aren’t legitimate), that morally absolves him of any obligation IMO.

Luke is right, as bad as it sounds. Too bad that kind of thought is illegal and will get you in trouble but it does solve the problem. When the legal system goes along with the lie. When the bottom falls out that is how it will be handle and the government will be too busy protecting themselves much less worrying about some 40 year old woman tricking some guy.

“It would be foolhardy to act in such a way, and would surely get you arrested and barred from ever being a part of the child’s life.”

That is what’s going to happen anyway, even playing nice. If it wasn’t true there would be no manosphere or Dalrock . We just had one tipping point with the Re-election of Obama maybe the next tipping point is “there is no justice” It’s coming and then political favor and clanning up with a group rather than rule of law and individual rights becomes the standard for a very large part of the un politically connected. (non upper middle class) I like the thumb tack analogy

Throughout time immortal, men have been brainwashed into believing women are and were innocent victims. As most here know, nothing could be further from the truth. Nevertheless, social programming, conditioning and engineering are very powerful forces not easily overcome. In this regard, men are mostly to blame for their own naiveté and gullibility. Admittedly, I’m one of the billions of former fools.

When was the last time you saw a mass movement by women to force their gender into mandatory selective service registration? When was the last time you saw a mass movement by women demanding quotas for equal presence in sanitation, construction or other laborious fields? You haven’t and you won’t. Why? Those are “male jobs”. Those jobs are just too hard and too dangerous for women. Women don’t want those jobs. They only want the high paying, powerful jobs. Women want equal representation as executives, in the board room and on the hill. Those dirty jobs where their nails, makeup or hair might get mussed are for men. Can you say “disposable male”?

Expect forced marriage after a couple of years of cohabitation to become a reality. Expect laws that dictate that half of all executive positions be filled by women (already partially here) to become reality. Expect that relatively small amounts of time spent in what witnesses might deem as fatherly behavior be written into law as valid evidence for child support claims. Expect ever stronger policies that further misandric behavior against boys and men in education to flourish. Expect laws directed at imprisoning men under the guise of “anti-feminist hate crime” legislation to spew forth. Similar anti-male laws, legislation and policies have already been enacted or are in the works in other countries.

That’s an interesting thing for her to say. I actually have a post on that in the works – basically a series of excerpts from research conducted in the last six years. One of the conclusions of the research is that men are often the first to profess love for a women, not the other way around.

I suppose this comment has been long in coming. I had a very very bad breakup with my fiance in the past six months, and while I’d been swallowing red pills since just before I met her, I had to swallow the biggest ones in my breakup. I feel like telling my story could only help in revealing the problems you’ve analyzed in this post-feminist world.

I met a girl at an anime convention. It was a magical fairy-tale meeting. I’m not exaggerating. There was a (somewhat) formal ball. I came dressed in a tuxedo and she was in an unfinished steampunk princess outfit. I saw her with her friend less than five minutes after entering the ballroom and she accepted my invitation to dance immediately. It was a beautiful night. She was (is) beautiful, funny, a total nerd and geek like myself, and as our relationship developed, I discovered she was everything I wanted in a wife. My dream girl. Literally. Sometimes I’d felt like crying because I was so happy God had finally granted my request for a wife, and he had basically dropped her in my lap in the most romantic magical way imaginable.

We got engaged less than six months after marrying. It was awesome. Everything was awesome. I felt a surge of reknowned passion and focus and dedication in doing everything better and trying harder than ever before. It’s amazing what a lovely woman can inspire in a man. She was amazing, and I wanted to live with her forever and protect her and love her and everything. She had a bad past, very slightly exaggerated, but I felt I was rescuing a freaking princess by being as nice as I possibly could be. And at first she seemed to appreciate it.

Then on our 1-year anniversary, it all came apart. No, something horrible hadn’t happened to us in the days leading up to it. In fact, the previous time we’d seen each other was during her birthday. It felt good to give her things. I loved her with all my heart, and I wanted to shower her with all kinds of video-gaming stuff I know I’d love to be given. But then later our anniversary came, and she was cold- like she couldn’t care less about me.

What possessed her to act this way? I honestly do not know. I couldn’t answer that question for you if I tried. But we had had conflicts before. I didn’t really emphasize submission on a wife’s part to her husband during our dating. I naively thought it wasn’t going to be an issue I needed to worry about. But when we had conflicts, I noticed times when it was obviously her fault, but ultimately she would hold her ground and I had to either let it go, or apologize for hurting her feelings EVEN IF IT WAS 100% DEMONSTRATED THAT I WAS 100% IN THE RIGHT AND SHE WAS 100% IN THE WRONG. Heck, every time she apologized she made it about her and offered excuses and tried to garner sympathy- EVERY TIME. Always. She never liked it even if I got mad. She got all mopy until I worked for ages to persuade her I wasn’t mad anymore. I had no idea just how bad coddling her was. Apologizing without reference to what a poor poor person she was was impossible for her.

Her being cold and distant and all-out disrespectful at the next convention made for a kind of last-stroke. She made me so mad that I left early that day. What did she do exactly? She barely spoke to me, wouldn’t look me in the eye, pretty much did whatever she wanted without even asking me what I wanted to do and didn’t give a flying flip about hanging with me even though I went out on a very long financial limb to get there. I objected at one point to some posters she was considering buying because they have very very sexy anime girls on them. This was because despite the fact that we had no sexual outlet since we weren’t married, I was trying even then to beat my mind into never even thinking of anyone but her (Side note: This proved extraordinarily painful for me, mentally and physically. Anyone’s input on this would be appreciated because I haven’t a clue why that was the case). She, believe it or not, mocked me outright right there in front of her friend and whomever might have been near us listening. A complete and total slap in the face in my attempt to worship her and ensure she didn’t feel undesired by me. I couldn’t believe it.

She knew something was up when I left and didn’t tell her. She immediately texted me and asked if I was going to leave her. She could walk all over me and I wouldn’t think of asking her if she had some nefarious plan to get back at me for it. I finally do something out of frustration and she questions my loyalty.

I demanded she apologize. It escalated again. I finally wound up giving her the silent treatment. What did she do? She published what happened on Facebook where a bunch of clueless know-it-all female friends and relatives coddled her and called me abusive and controlling, and that there were other men out there she could have instead.

I finally got so mad I even drove down to her place to compel her to apologize. Publicly. Public humiliation requires public apology. I had come so close to declaring our relationship over, and she’d been spooked. I made her delete the thread on Facebook and issue an apology. She went to write one, but absolutely refused to let me watch her type it out. I learned why. It was a ridiculous apology that I now see was an attempt to garner sympathy by apologizing BUT THEN saying everything was her fault. What do you know- nobody bought it. She even wound up poisoning my best friend against me with her game for sympathy.

I finally recognized the problem. It was something I didn’t see as a problem, but didn’t know till it was far too late. It was a problem of a lack of authority. I was once again, as I had for my siblings five years ago, fought for authority where I had none. My parents have dysfunctional issues of their own, but so did she. When I put my foot down to curb her bad behavior, she faked compliance and then turned around and shanked me for trying to do so.

I had a horrible moment when I realized I was fighting a battle I could never win. I realized I was going to have to walk away. So I ended our relationship. My ex went crazy with tears and texts and emails begging me to come back to her. It didn’t happen. She was almost psychopathic in her inability to understand how messed up she was. I knew what was wrong with her and what could help her, but she would never submit to me. She was on her own in an apartment sporadically receiving emergency money from her mom (women are so equally sufficient on their own, dontcha know), so she was living on her own calling her own shots. I had no pull of any kind to compel her to do pretty much anything. I couldn’t curb her behavior at all because I wasn’t her authority despite the fact that I’d essentially treated her like my wife.

This wasn’t all her fault. She had been fed the feminist Kool-aid all her life. I had started red-pilling just before I met her, but never made it a point to mandate that my future wife must submit to me. Why hadn’t I? It was because I’d never wanted that. That’s the problem- this must have been my most beta-trait that I’ve thrown to the wind. The way feminists and my ex talk about wives submitting to husbands you’d think men in general were power-hungry wife-beating brutes. I’m not that in the least. Vast majority of men aren’t. I wasn’t out to find some vulnerable girl whom I could dominate, I.E. treat like crap, habitually beat her, etc. I was what you and so many others describe as a “White Knight”. I was happy to find a girl who had had a messed up past who had immediately fallen in love with me and my nice-guyness. It was awesome. I wanted to share my whole life with her and grow old with her…

As it was I had to discover far too late just how messed up she was… But that wasn’t the thing that made me leave her. I knew I had what it took to lead a disciplined life and, given the proper authoritative control, improve her for the better. She was a dysfunctional woman who would have done fine had she just learned some basic respect for her man.

So we are both victims. I’m much better off than other victims of feminism- we never married or anything, so there was no legal fight of any kind (I spent over $200 to help her pay her security deposit on her apartment. I won’t get it back since she won’t get it till she leaves and we’re already apart, but that’s trivial compared to what other men have gone through). I’m not doing so bad- but I still occasionally fight the urge to cry because I don’t hate my ex. She has everything I want in my wife, but I don’t dare go back to her. She’s dishonest, psychopathic, completely self-centered, and doesn’t know just what a perfect marriage life we could have had.

This took a long time to write, but I had to say it at some point. Feminism hasn’t destroyed my life, but it left me with a massive scar on my heart. One that I was hoping would never need to be there because she was my first love, first girlfriend, first date, first dance, first everything. I know my marriage value is still high, now, a piece of my heart is with a woman who, for all intents and purposes, seemed like perfect marriage material. I’ll always think of her no matter what.

I’m very pessimistic now. I’ve no idea when I’ll marry. Ironically, I do live near communities of conservative Christians, but I’ve been poisoned against even interacting with them (Mennonites, Charityites, etc.) because THEY represent abuses of authority, and while there may be submissive women amongst them, I’ve no desire to get back into that community again. I hate it. I’ve no idea where I will find a wife- I like taking red pills, but they paint such a bleak future for me.

Women… I don’t know how to say it, but they are psychopathic, dangerous, spiteful, and all around miserable decrepit creatures in ways I can’t understand. What woman openly mocks her husband for telling her not to purchase posters of other sexy women because he wants to make her the center of his sexual universe even in his thought life? It confirms for me what you and others have been saying- women are so unbelievably ungrateful. I can’t comprehend it at all.

If someone could tell me where I’m supposed to find a red-pill woman who isn’t already taken, let me know. I can’t trust almost any woman anymore. Like, any of them. I hate feminism. I hate it with every fiber of my being. I can’t listen to sad songs anymore because it reminds me of saying goodbye to my ex. I look at her picture and I don’t see a cruel psychopathic villian. She’s a woman. I’m a man. My natural male instinct still is to love and care about women and want to protect them- and now I must fight that impression everyday thanks to what feminism has taught to them.

I better end this here. I could go on… If anyone can tell me where I should go from here in finding a wife, I welcome some sound advice from some sane people.

Prince, yours is a sad story and I’m sorry you had to experience such cruelty. I’m not sire how long ago that breakup was but I went through a difficult one myself and the old cliche about time is true. Ive had it explained to me like a broken arm, it’ll hurt for a while but the pain will dull until it’s gone. You might get sharp pains from time to time (those memories) but you’ll be mostly healed. Yes, you’ll never forget that person though. It’s unfortunate. I’m happy that you escaped relatively unscathed and armed with the knowledge to protect yourself in the future.

Re: princeasbel asks “What woman openly mocks her husband”? And the answer is Every Single One, if she wants to and thinks she can get away with it. This includes, but is not limited to, women whose beta husbands are irrationally still in love with their wives.

Every wife is prone to contempt. Women’s contempt is the John Gottman nuclear weapon of relationships, but every woman will use it for first-choice friendly fire anyway if they can, because that’s How Women Are. As soon as women fall out of love, which is early and often, every woman exhibits contempt. The only solution, aside from finding a virtuous unicorn of which you cannot and will not ever find one, is to eliminate nuclear weapons by going Dread the first time she begins to exhibit contempt. One problem is that by going Dread you killed you love for her. And you will have to go Dread the second time, of course, which will be a lot more effective since you already don’t love her anymore. She will not dare exhibit contempt in your relationship afterwards. But if you have to go Dread the third time it doesn’t matter anymore because the relationship was already over.

Re: red pill doesn’t make a beta an alpha. First, an alpha knows he’s an alpha: he knows that almost all women are unusually submissive towards him and he thinks that’s the way things ought to be; he likes being treated unusually well. But a blue pill beta, to whom essentially all women are exceedingly unreasonably difficult almost all the time inexplicably, doesn’t know that that’s not the way things ought to be. Because it’s his uniform life (adult life anyway) experience; so what else should he think than that this is how things are because that’s how things have always been so that’s how they will always be? He has no hope of things ever changing, until the red pill. Then he knows he’s a beta and he knows that’s not the way things ought to be. Truly, women OUGHT to submit much more to nice guy betas and then everyone would be happier all around. But that’s not the way things (haha “things”) are, nor were, nor ever will be. But women (“things”) will submit much more to betas who are no longer so nice.

Tying back to topic. A man who works hard to get a girl (or girls, doesn’t matter): a beta. A man who likes to make a girl (or girls) happier by doing nice stuff like scratching her back or bringing her flowers or even bringing home the bacon: a beta. The single definition of a primate beta is that they exert effort to make females happier. In total stark complete contrast, primate females exert themselves to make an alpha male happier. Period, end of discussion, no mitigating circumstances at all ever.

Re Leif – the poor bastard. Yea, we’ve all been there, but not quite so damn publicly. I feel so bad for him, I can only imagine what is going on in his head. I think he’s got the Romantic Comedy notion that if he’ll just keep loving and making dramatic public gestures to show it that she will come to her senses and come back to him. And of course, ironically, it is the single thing that guarantees that she will never have interest in him again. I mean if he thinks about it, and about what she is doing with other men, how can he possibly think that just loving her will make it all ok. How low can a man fall to accept this? And how can he be so blind that he doesn’t see that he’s guaranteeing the outcome that he supposedly doesn’t want? Unless he is some sort of genius playing a reverse psychology game, which I doubt.

I know it’s beating a dead horse a bit, really I have no more interest in her, it’s his fall that is morbidly fascinating at this point.

A girl I know was dating this guy that I figured out was some sort of minor celebrity over at one of the old school pua boards. The first month or so that they were dating he was confident, deftly handled her shittests and had her respecting him. I’ve never seen her like this with someone before, and she seemed glad to be in the situation, talking about long term plans with him, etc. I guess his game was only superficial, a month passes and he made this terrible transformation into the neediest weepy beta supplicant I have ever seen. When she broke plans with him to help me with something that I called in a favor on, he left her weepy voice-mails, choking back tears “Why do you like to hurt me?”. Professing his love over and over to her. Of course, she broke it off with him soon thereafter. He spent the next two months leaving her notes professing his love, sending gifts over to her house, machine-gunning weepy texts, etc. She couldn’t be more disgusted with him. Again, guaranteeing the outcome that he tried to avoid.

Leif Erikson may want to consider that what he thinks is showing love is not. Jesus loved the Church and was pretty hard core on it (if you read the letters in chapters 2 and 3 of the Book of Revelation). I have been considering the implications of that for some time myself.

You seem to want to pluck the perfect wife, fully grown, from the wife tree. That will never happen. Alphagameplan.org had an interesting recent post about how you need to find and develop such a wife, not just expect her to already be perfect. I know I have to continually work on these things in my own marriage. Yes, the excuses flow, but your response is your decision. I am not perfect in this and would surely be slammed here (and have been), but walking it out is the necessity rather than expecting it to be perfect.

As the saying goes, the perfect situation won’t be once you enter it.

It seems like many of the things you did (paying a $200 deposit on her apartment?) may not have been as red pill as you claim. You are imperfectly walking it out and you expect perfection in her? Not likely to happen.

She may not have been worth pursuing, but you are going to find it hard to find the ideal woman today wherever. You may as well go the MGTOW route if that is what you want.

Unless he is some sort of genius playing a reverse psychology game, which I doubt.

I too doubt it. But he keeps referring to her as “my wife” even as she talks about dating and having sex with other men…do you think he’s almost trying to shame her by using the word in almost every post about her? As in “you are still my wife”. Are they still legally married? I hope for the best and that he’s running some real underground stuff. But I’m probably just being too optimistic.

@Marissa
Agree, I think he’s trying to guilt her into getting back with him. I just don’t see how that has any chance of working, I have never seen or heard of a woman letting guilt influence their decision about being with a man. In the case of my recent exposure to a similar situation that I mentioned in my previous comment, I got the impression of someone insecure and inexperienced with women doing a kind of puppy dog “don’t you see how much you are hurting me” guilt trip. My psychoanalysis is that this is someone sure, in pain, and so regressing to what might have worked with their mom. It’s really a form of narcissism, look at me in pain, how can you do this to me, me me me it’s all about me and what’s happening to me.

It’s sad because here he is with weepy tweets to the whole world and if you read hers you wouldn’t even know he exists. He is debasing himself and even a decent woman probably wouldn’t respect that If he could pull himself together and be a bit of a man about it all and have some self respect and be (justifiably) mad at her for the betrayal and try to move on it actually might have a chance of affecting her. At this point it may be too late for all of that.

I haven’t, actually, so most of Leif’s insistence is odd (to me). I guess it’s my neurochemical mixture at the moment (or ever) …

Never pined after a girl in highschool and tried to win her over/ back by debasing yourself, kissing her ass, etc.? I figured it was a common error. Most people get it out of the way when they are young and so it is less common in more serious adult relationships. Though still more common than it should be.

I guess rather than get in a beta/desperation/omega debate, let’s just simplify and say it is weakness that is despised. And Leif’s and other similar strategies have weakness at their foundation.

Let us have some Christian Charity. I had a look at Mr Erikson’s Twitter and although he had previously said that 2013 was terrible year he is now saying that last week was the worst week ever.

It is natural, I suspect, for men – when they feel committed to a woman – to remain committed and to double down in their hopes and thus in their Beta-ness. Men always feel that failure in a relationship is their fault and their male friends are always only too happy to confirm that view. This must be male biological nature. From pre-history until fifty years ago such an attitude served civilisation and men (as well as women and children) well. The man who said ‘bye bye’ to every woman the moment that woman even appeared to be less than grateful would lead to a world with fatherless children and abandoned women. The Cad was regarded (and rightly) even as one admired his skill as somewhat less than moral.

Women however are the very opposite. Even though she has broken her Christian vows and contradicted her writing as to Conservative marriage, deprived her children of a real Father and doubtless causing massive financial as well as emotional loss to her Husband, Mrs Erikson as you can see from The Stir, sees herself as a victim!; she is the one who is hurt (even as she seeks out the hottest guys to date, but with highly inflated terms as to her own SMV).

This blindness to reality also seems to have served women and thus children and civilisation well, as women are seen to be more malleable and thus adaptable to changing situations. Women whether avowed Feminists or as with Mrs Erikson, the very opposite, always vote for Team Vagina. (New man, new children, new stuff)

Men had to hold their ground and succeed. Those who didn’t were either killed or cast out by the tribe. Rejection of any sort tends to hurt men severely and for long periods of time. It is like death because it usually meant death. Women on the contrary merely needed to be, and to be attractive and amenable. The loss of a man to fend for himself in nature meant little to a woman, there were always new men, and women thus needed to adapt to the new head man easily, even if his ideas be entirely contrary to her former man. Nothing has changed or can change in those respects as we are hard-wired biologically. This is why no one ever takes what women say seriously as their views are merely weather-vanes pointing in the direction of their present best interests.

That is why I have no time for MRAS or as they now fancy themselves MHRAs; Human Rights are for the less than capable and men by definition are not that; demanding water-wings to be real men. All I seek is fair laws and fairness under the law and a recognition that by reason of our technology giving women a pussy-pass is now neither desirable nor necessary.

@Opus Men had to hold their ground and succeed. Those who didn’t were either killed or cast out by the tribe. Rejection of any sort tends to hurt men severely and for long periods of time. It is like death because it usually meant death. Women on the contrary merely needed to be, and to be attractive and amenable. The loss of a man to fend for himself in nature meant little to a woman, there were always new men, and women thus needed to adapt to the new head man easily, even if his ideas be entirely contrary to her former man.

Well put. Which is why women have nothing but contempt for a man who are perceived as weak. My guess is that in a state of nature it would be equivalent to an ousted alpha of a group trying to garner sympathy from the group – the good of the tribe would demand the shunning of the old former alpha. In more recent history where monogamy reigned, women and children’s health and well being were dependent on the man’s commitment and sympathy. A forgiving man benefited both the women and the children’s well being and was socially encouraged. Like I think you are saying, his strategy would have worked in a society where monogamous lifetime marriage was encouraged; she would have in the end had no where really to go and both her and her children’s life would have become worse. A forgiving, loving man who would take her back after such a mistake would have been not only good for society, but good for her selfish interests. And so, would have been a rational strategy because it would have a decent chance of achieving the desired reconciliation.

Alas, in today’s world it is irrational, counterproductive and discouraged by society. It goes to the same point that gets made often, that guys like this don’t even understand the rules of the game in today’s world and so pursue a losing strategy. If he really loved her, shouldn’t he pursue a course of action that has some chance of making her see the error of her ways and reconciling them? Weepy notes on twitter in front of the whole internet that ignore the wrong she has done and that reflect a lack of self respect are just not going to make this happen. Take this only a few steps further and he becomes the creepy stalker who won’t leave her alone and so faces criminal charges.

I honestly feel a lot of sympathy for him. I would love to help him out but I fear there is no chance that he would listen. If anything he seems to enjoy just a bit playing the martyr of him against the world, sort of an “if loving her is wrong then I want to be wrong” kind of thing where it’s like a point of pride for him that he pursues a losing strategy. I just hope that he has some aware friends who he might listen to who could sit him down and try to reason with him.

Couldn’t let “Amazing how fast the trolls of hate show up!” go without applying a little Troll Power! (This being MLK, Jr. Day, I also invoked being “judged by the content of [one’s] character” to Team Woman nay-sayers.)

JennyE:Oh yeah, also I went to New York City and met Mike Huckabee, and did a quick segment on his show. Such an awesome experience! La la love the peeps at Fox News.

This is just an extension of her bragging about buying underwear at Victoria’s Secret for her daughters. Jenny Erickson is now a minor media figure. There is zero chance of her ever going back to Lief, and the sooner he comes to terms with that, the better.

I don’t watch much TV, so I have no idea what her interviews look like, but Huckabee is supposed to be one of the pro-marriage, socially conservative, politico-entertainers. I bet he is a major white knight as well, if for no other reason than inviting Jenny on.

Ms. Erickson will be useful for some time to come, both as a clear exemplar of androsphere warnings, and also as a way to test various Socons and Tradcons; anyone who welcomes an obvious frivorcee’ like Ms. Erickson is no friend of men, or civilization.

Jenny Erikson + Leif Erikson = Signed deals to aid in the destruction of marriage for the few that still believe it’s possible to enjoy a happy / successful / beautiful / lifetime traditional marriage. The Matt Walsh Blog has the same kind of deal. They’ve sold what they cannot get back in exchange for a small amount of fame and influence. That’s just sad to see.

Can you prove they exist? Is there even one person that was reared for the 12 ‘grade school’ years with any of these named ‘people’? The deals they have made, and deals Mark Driscoll has made… require more of a person that just time, work and effort. But don’t take my word for it. wp.me/P3P5mL-gg – The truth exists, it’s widely published… but most readers here will continue to ignore it.

.@sambotta I tried to follow some of your ramblings on that link, but this "writer" thinks you're incoherent. #EyeRoll

Actually, no. It’s usually quite clear. Narcissists are drawn to creating blogs. (Not to say that other people aren’t, however, and for more legitimate reasons than narcissistic supply.) With each new “follower” on their blog, or “friend” on Facebook, pop goes the ego, and the narcissism goes from incipient to full-blown raging.

Always reminds me of the New Yorker cartoon with the wife, at her husband’s funeral, saying, “I really expected more people. He had so many friends on Facebook!”

Yes, bad people do bad things, which is what makes Jenny’s critics bad people. Is it Jenny’s fault that Leif turned boring? Is it Jenny’s fault that her pastor started snooping around and gossiping? People need to step back and stop blaming the victim here!

Herbie Marcuse/Boxer Thanks for your support. I respect and appreciate your insights. Posts this month have primarily been written from the hospital, flat on my back with an IV in my arm. Even when I’m not recovering from a rear-end crash into my car, my comments here have tended to be filled with run-on sentences. You know the quote attributed to no less than seven people, “If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.”

My favorite variation of this quote:You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost. ~Mark Twain

I am glad you tweeted Leif Erikson. I sometimes get the impression he is locked in his own private Spandau with no way out. He now has a path to freedom should he choose to take it.

Jenny Erikson gets funnier by the day. Fancy that: a visit to New York and a studio with shiny lights and things and people to be polite to her and who give the impression of being interested in her views on herself. Wow.

Does anyone know the missing link with Mrs Erikson: aged nineteen she is so lost and unsure of herself that she marries Beta boy Leif (who she had clearly been leading on until she got hoisted by her own petard) as no sane man wanted her for more than Pump and Dump – if that; ten years later she is a minor media celebrity soon to have a date, not with a hunky Alpha but with something far more cruel: the wall, and providing at the Stir hours of pointless fun to Androsphere types. How does that happen?

With some details changed in order to not out myself, I happen to have run in the same circles as Ms. Erikson, and had the chance to secure a “date” with her. (Don’t be surprised if there ends up being another article with more tips and tricks about what dating for single, divorced moms is like, with my PUA persona as the target.)

I ended up barely being able to go through with it. Something horrific changed in the last three years. She looks as if she’s aged at least 10 years. Her personality used to have a certain sweetness and pleasantness about it which has fallen flat now.

I cut things off early when I asked for a few details about her divorce, and she (reluctantly) said it’s not legally final (and apparently not even close to being final, I’ve been divorced myself in the same jurisdiction and she and Mr. Erikson have a long ways to go and seem to be disputing some things). I excused myself by stating I prefer not to officially date women who aren’t legally single yet and wrapped things up.

All in all, one of the most soul-destroying dates I’ve had, and I’ve had many as a bottom-feeding PUA.

I don’t know, if I had to bet on her chin or the wall winning…I’d bet on the ol’ chinny, chin, chin.

Leif needs to walk away lest he leave his kids a lingering image of a sad loser. Go get another life Leif, there’s worse things than being too boring for a sociopathic wife. And nothing to say that you can’t change.

As I mentioned above, our problem is not that men are being gracious, but that we have institutionalized unthankfulness as our response to gracious acts by men. This is extremely corrosive to our culture, and ultimately risks creating a culture where men see marriage and fatherhood as foolhardy.

No, this is not our problem. Our problem is that we are thieves, and have internalized a mindset of theft. To take a mans property is theft. To take his children, the result of his seed, is theft.

Imagine a man comes up with an idea, he invests time and money and hires a manager to partner with him and give only time. Then the manager splits and takes everything, how is that different than a woman taking a child from a father?

To take a mans time and effort against his will and without his agreement is theft.

No man walks into a marriage agreeing to the costs imposed on him at divorce, and even when they explicitly sign contracts stating what they agree to (prenups), these agreements are ignored and contracts are imposed. This is theft. This is slavery.

We have men in black robes give commands to gun wearing men in blue uniforms to brutalize and destroy other men, and it is simply theft.

We live in a slave society. It dresses itself up differently, but we are slaves.

I do not know how to escape this nightmare, but we must start to realize the truth. In a very real, legal and practical sense, our vaunted freedom is a lie and we are enslaved. We have masters standing over us, with tasers in place of whips, black robed sociopaths in place of the horse riding plantation owner, and the women as fellow slaves to help our masters keep us in line.

Reading your story, I would almost think she: cheated on you, was feeling guilty, and wanted you to do the breakup.

What can I say? What happened to you sucks, but you are young (at least sounds like it), and if you are, you have an opportunity to find a better wife with the new “red pill tools” you have acquired. The odds are with you that you’ll find a hotter and more pleasant girlfriend/wife. At those Comic Con / Anime conventions there are plenty of nerdy hot chicks (saw a hot elf-chick at this summer’s convention). At the very least, find a hot chick to bang to get your ex out of your system, then find a wife.

“Imagine a man comes up with an idea, he invests time and money and hires a manager to partner with him and give only time. Then the manager splits and takes everything, how is that different than a woman taking a child from a father?” My (male) business manager-partner had the grace to be embarrased at selling me out. That was the big difference.

Karma . I open a blog for the first time in a couple weeks….because of bing consumed by work, and read this post.
In a Rorschach sort of way it reminded me of a couple of things, one trivial, the other not so much.
The trivial is that this tendency in women applies across anything males do for the most part and I think there are few exceptions. Even the most regularly overtly appreciative woman will give in to this urge timee to time one way or another. Happened to me last evening. Stressful day for both wife and I as she has returned to attend her pienultimate semester of university and the early year has me running in my work. She went to shower and I did what men do, in 10 Minutes I managed to transform the three main living areas from chaos to calm order, efficiently and cheerfully. When she came out, her first words were, while pointing to the peel off tin lid of a can of can food, I’d left the lid on the kitchen counter……alone…..surrounded by clean shiny surfaces and order. re words were “you did that yesterday too.” The rest I’d done, see, those things don’t bother her when they are a mess. But she is OCD about germs and chemicals and things like animal food on counters, so…..the 10 minutes of frenzy I made mattered not. The lid did.
He other thing is about Dalrocks sage observation that men really are gracious about this. And how that is one of the 3 or 4 mega themes that inform those Christian men who blanch at red pill thinking
You guys are bitter or hurt so it’s understandable that you’d spew your anger
Don’t you know thatrovisooj is called b God
She is weaker vessel

Etc.

But sometimes we have to raise to the surface what we do, and the difficulty is to convince them that it is possible to raise this objectively while remaining at once still gracious. That’s a big problem

1) You were not terribly scarred, you just learned a valuable lesson on the cheap.

Rejoice!

2) You cannot write that she was a) everything you ever wanted in a woman and b) a psychopathic bitch in the next sentence unless you indeed do want a psychopathic bitch.

3) Get some Game son and get it fast because you talk too much and act not nearly enough.

In order to get a crash course, get a book on training dogs. Did I just compare women to dogs? No, not all of them. However, you dont walk up to a dog and tell him that you are the leader of the pack and this is how it is going to be, you need to convince it that you are simply stronger, faster, smarter and generally more awesome than the dog is.

One mistake that you would probably not have made is that you were reinforcing her bad behavior.

You dont reward a drama queen with attention, because that is exactly what she wants from you, you take it away from her.

You demand explanations, apologies, drama, drama, drama….

No!

Bad doggie!

No walk in the park for you!

Next woman who tries to pull this off you stand up and leave, or, even better you throw her out. Just give her her coat, point ot the door and tell her to leave.

Then you freeze her out for a week and ignore her, well, any attempts of communicating with you.

When she is ready to apologize you accept it, if not you freeze her out again.

Of course, she has been a bad, bad girl and needs to be punished.

Spank her.

Protip: If she playfully challenges your authority every now and then and asks you puppy eyed whether she has been a bad, bad girl now because she longs for some authority that makes her all hot and bothered you are doing it right.

Perhaps married men make more money because they fell in to the trap and work is a relatively sane/safe haven from the Mrs. More time/effort on the job more rewards ($$) and less time dealing with the shrew. Just an idea….